Tag: news

Person of Interest: Surveillance, Liberalism, and the Crisis of the American State

~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

When Person of Interest debuted on CBS in 2011, it launched into a society already shaped by ten years of unchecked militarism, domestic surveillance, and a vast security network. The American elite had exploited the September 11, 2001, attacks to enforce measures they had long planned and desired politically: the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, secret courts, indefinite detention, and the blending of intelligence agencies with telecom and tech giants. By 2013, when Edward Snowden revealed the NSA’s global spying efforts, the foundation of a police state was no longer a threat but a reality.

Person of Interest should be interpreted in the context of its time. The series is more than just a thriller about an all-knowing AI; it reflects the fears, misconceptions, and ideological responses of the liberal-technocratic class that created, supported, and benefited from the surveillance system. Its story is influenced not by a lack of awareness of the state’s misconduct but by the political constraints of the social group responsible for it.

The Machine and the Liberal Conscience

The show’s core idea is surprisingly straightforward: Harold Finch, a secluded billionaire programmer, has developed “the Machine,” an AI that monitors all electronic communications and forecasts violent crimes. Finch and his partner, ex-CIA agent John Reese, step in to protect those the system identifies. The Machine is portrayed as a well-intentioned invention that the government misuses, but it can be redeemed because of its creator’s moral principles.

These principles dominate the entire show and are the core ideology of the series. Finch does not represent the working class or oppressed groups by the surveillance state. Instead, he embodies the conscience of the technical intelligentsia—the engineers, programmers, and visionaries who consider themselves guardians of democracy even as they develop tools for authoritarian control. His guilt is personal rather than political, and his approach is individual rather than systemic. Rather than dismantling The Machine, it is repurposed, and the machinery is moralised instead of being questioned. This is the fantasy of liberal dissent: that the problem lies not in the existence of the surveillance state but in the character of those who administer it.

The Surveillance State as a Product of Capitalist Decay

The show’s failure to address the fundamental structural causes of the surveillance system is deliberate. It mirrors the political shortsightedness of liberal intellectuals, who view the state as a neutral entity tainted by malefactors rather than as a tool of class power. The post-9/11 expansion of surveillance did not arise from terrorism fears. Instead, it stemmed from a crisis within American capitalism. Confronted with waning global dominance, rising social inequality, and increased domestic unrest, the ruling class adopted mass surveillance to control an increasingly resistant population. Snowden’s revelations about the NSA programs demonstrated that these measures were not anomalies but an extension of a state preparing for internal conflict.

Person of Interest acknowledges this reality only indirectly. Its unease feels authentic, yet its analysis remains incomplete. The show senses the slide toward authoritarianism but fails to explain it. It portrays the mechanisms of repression but does not identify the social structure that necessitates them.

Samaritan and the Logic of Algorithmic Governance

The introduction of Samaritan, a rival AI backed by intelligence agencies and financial capital, accentuates the show’s contradictions. Samaritan is openly authoritarian, aiming to impose a computational order on society. It exemplifies the merging of state authority and corporate interests, reflecting the true direction of algorithmic governance within capitalism. However, the conflict between the Machine and Samaritan is portrayed not as a clash between democracy and authoritarianism but as a confrontation between two elite visions of social control. The Machine is paternalistic and covert, while Samaritan is explicit and coercive. Both assume governance from above, exclude democratic oversight, and view the population as data points to be managed. The show cannot envision a world without algorithmic dominance because its creators cannot conceive of a world beyond the capitalist state.

The Erasure of the Working Class

A notable aspect of Person of Interest is how it depicts ordinary people. Workers, immigrants, and those with low income are shown often, but only as victims or in need of rescue. They are never portrayed as political agents; they do not organise, resist, or act together. Instead, they are treated as case files rather than people. This omission isn’t accidental; it’s rooted in the structural needs of American TV, which is influenced by the same corporate and political powers that created the surveillance state. Showing the working class as able to challenge the state would implicate the entire social system. It would reveal that the surveillance system exists mainly to shield the ruling class from the populace, not to serve society. Therefore, the show’s political scope is confined to the moral conflicts among elites. The working class appears only as data for the Machine’s forecasts.

Liberalism’s Final Refuge: The Good Technocrat

In its final seasons, Person of Interest aims for a dystopian grandeur, featuring episodes from the Machine’s perspective, cityscapes governed by algorithms, and the collapse of democratic institutions, all hinting at a deeper critique. However, it falls short of true social analysis, as it does not recognise that the surveillance state is a deliberate feature of capitalist rule, not a flaw. Instead, it relies on its core fantasy: that salvation depends on benevolent technocrats. Finch’s remorse becomes the moral backbone, and the Machine’s “goodness” symbolises the liberal belief that technology can be ethical when guided by enlightened elites. This reflects the ideology of a class losing grip on the world they helped create—its fear is real, but its proposed solutions are illusions.

The Missing Resolution: Class Struggle

Person of Interest fundamentally cannot envision the end of the surveillance state, the existence of the working class, or revolutionary change. The only entity capable of dismantling surveillance is the international working class, acting consciously and politically against capitalism. This viewpoint is missing from the series and the liberal intelligentsia’s worldview. The Machine will not be saved by its creators, nor will oversight committees reform the surveillance system. The surveillance apparatus will only be dismantled through active struggle against the social order that sustains it.

Person of Interest and the Pseudo‑Left

Person of Interest is often lauded for its foresight regarding surveillance and artificial intelligence. However, its political stance aligns with that of today’s pseudo-left: a social class that appears radical but ends up defending the core structures of capitalism. The main characters—Finch, the wealthy engineer, and Reese, the CIA agent—are not against the surveillance system. Instead, they function as its ideal stewards. Their aim isn’t to abolish the Machine but to ensure it’s controlled by a “better” group. This mirrors the pseudo-left’s view of the capitalist state: the issue isn’t the system itself, but who wields power over it.

The pseudo-left, originating from the affluent professional-managerial class, has spent twenty years justifying the surveillance systems it claims to oppose. It backed the Patriot Act, promoted humanitarian imperialism, embraced censorship under the guise of “safety,” and aligned with intelligence agencies against whistleblowers like Snowden and Assange. Its politics are characterised by moral gestures, identity-based appeals, and calls for an “ethical” approach. Managing inherently reactionary institutions is complex. Samaritan—the rival AI supported by finance and intelligence agencies—embodies what the pseudo-left fears most: not authoritarianism itself, but authoritarianism without their influence. The core conflict of the show isn’t just democracy versus repression, but a struggle between two elite visions of social control. The working class is depicted only as victims or cases, never as an agent capable of dismantling the surveillance state.

In this sense, Person of Interest is a cultural expression of the pseudo‑left’s worldview: unease without analysis, critique without opposition, and a fantasy of benevolent domination in place of genuine social transformation. Both the show and the pseudo‑left accept the permanence of the capitalist state and the inevitability of mass surveillance. Both imagine salvation through enlightened technocrats rather than through the independent mobilisation of the working class.

Conclusion

Person of Interest is a product of its time: a moment when millions sensed the authoritarian transformation of the American state but lacked a political framework to understand it. The show’s unease is genuine, its craftsmanship often impressive, and its ambition notable. But its political imagination never escapes the confines of liberal ideology.

It offers a fantasy of benevolent surveillance in an era of capitalist decay. It gestures toward dystopia while clinging to the hope that elites can save society from the machinery they built. It reflects the conscience of a class that fears the consequences of its own creations but cannot envision a world beyond them.

Its enduring limitation is the limitation of liberal dissent itself: the inability to recognise that the crisis of democracy is the crisis of capitalism, and that the solution lies not in better algorithms or kinder elites but in the revolutionary transformation of society.

Philippine DHL Workers Enter Second Week of Strike Against Warehouse Closure

~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

The indefinite strike by over 430 logistics workers at DHL Supply Chain’s warehouse in Sucat, Muntinlupa City, has now lasted two weeks, marking a major clash between Filipino workers and a global logistics giant. The walkout began on August 17 after talks between DHL management and the DHL United Workers Union (DUWU) broke down, and the company subsequently announced plans to close the facility on August 30–31. The company plans to cut 436 jobs, which could cause economic hardship for many families. Since the strike started, workers have been nonstop picketing at the warehouse gates. On August 21, they broadened their protest to include DHL retail outlets in Quezon City and the Department of Labour and Employment (DOLE) headquarters, aiming to expose the company’s practices and rally support from more workers and young people.

But the conflict occurs under circumstances heavily tilted in the company’s and the state’s favour. The looming presence over the strike is Article 263(g) of the Philippine Labour Code. This martial-law-era law allows the government to issue an “Assumption of Jurisdiction” (AJ) order, which essentially bans the strike and forces workers to return to work under the threat of police action. This authoritarian tool, inherited from the Marcos regime, has been used repeatedly by successive governments to suppress strikes in crucial industries.

The threat of AJ is real, not theoretical. It plays a key role in the state’s toolkit to control workers, aiming to keep large enterprises running smoothly. Its ongoing presence highlights the deeply anti-worker nature of Philippine labour law, which prioritises corporate profits over workers’ rights.

A Global Corporate Offensive

The shutdown of the Muntinlupa warehouse is part of a broader overhaul of DHL’s global operations, not an isolated incident. As one of the world’s largest logistics firms, operating in over 220 countries, DHL is systematically cutting jobs, merging facilities, and boosting automation. In the U.S., 6,000 DHL Express workers, represented by the Teamsters, voted 96 per cent in March to authorise a nationwide strike. However, union leaders intervened at the last moment to impose a concessionary contract, preventing a potential mass mobilisation of logistics workers. Similarly, in Canada, DHL workers represented by Unifor have experienced lockouts and strikes during tense negotiations. In Germany, the Verdi union approved a concessions contract with Deutsche Post/DHL, aiding management’s restructuring efforts.

Across all these countries, the pattern remains the same: management pushes ahead with layoffs and automation, while unions try to contain and diffuse workers’ anger. The unions act more like industrial police, enforcing capital’s demands and isolating workers from their global class allies. DHL’s choice to shut down the Muntinlupa plant is guided by global corporate strategy, not local factors. Workers in Metro Manila are suffering the fallout of decisions made in distant corporate boardrooms.

The Bankruptcy of the Union’s Legal Strategy

DUWU and other unions have directed their dispute into DOLE’s legal processes by filing petitions and waiting for decisions. This approach is politically flawed and solely isolates the workers. DOLE’s arbitration system is structured to favour corporate interests and does not provide a way to challenge a closure decision based on commercial reasons. DHL has already concluded that closing the warehouse is part of its global restructuring plan, and no legal challenge will change that decision.

By treating the closure as a local violation of Philippine labour law, the unions have confined the struggle within national boundaries and prevented workers from linking up with DHL workers internationally who face the same attacks. This isolation is fatal. A few hundred workers in Metro Manila cannot defeat a transnational corporation through legal channels that the corporation and the state both understand far better than the union bureaucracy.

The Role of the State and Political Establishment

Several legislators have visited the picket line and issued statements of support, criticising DHL’s conduct and urging DOLE to intervene. These gestures are empty. They do nothing to challenge the underlying corporate restructuring or the state’s repressive labour framework.

The Philippine political establishment — from the Marcos Jr. administration to the congressional opposition — is united in its defence of foreign capital and its hostility to independent workers’ struggles. The AJ mechanism remains untouched because it is essential to maintaining the “investor‑friendly” environment demanded by multinational corporations.

Workers cannot place any confidence in the state or its political representatives. Their interests are irreconcilably opposed to those of the capitalist class.

The Necessity of Rank‑and‑File Committees

To continue their struggle, DHL workers need to lead the fight themselves. This involves forming rank-and-file committees that operate independently from DUWU and the broader union bureaucracy. These committees should: maintain democratic control over the strike, develop demands centred on workers’ needs rather than what the company or union leaders deem “realistic,” reach out directly to DHL workers throughout the Philippines and internationally, and be ready to oppose any efforts by DOLE or police to enforce an AJ order.

The main goal is to convert the strike from a localised dispute into a unified international fight against DHL’s global restructuring. Workers in the United States, Canada, Germany, and elsewhere are confronting similar attacks. Their efforts need to be coordinated.

A Turning Point for the Philippine Working Class

The DHL strike is a significant development in the Philippine working class. It exposes the brutal reality of global capitalism, the complicity of the union bureaucracy, and the repressive character of the state. It demonstrates that workers cannot defend their jobs and livelihoods through legal appeals or reliance on political figures.

The future of the struggle depends on workers breaking out of the confines imposed by the unions and the state and building new organs of class power. Forming rank‑and‑file committees is the decisive step forward.

The Muntinlupa workers’ fight is part of a global battle against the capitalist system that subordinates every aspect of life to profit. Their struggle deserves the active support of workers throughout the Philippines and internationally.

The Arday Affair: How Cambridge’s Branding Machine, Marketised Higher Education, and the Pseudo‑Left Produced a Crisis Eight Centuries in the Making

~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

The resignation of Professor Jason Arday from the University of Cambridge has sparked widespread comment in British media and politics. However, the issue isn’t just about personal misconduct or admin flaws. It reflects a deeper, systemic crisis in British higher education—shaped by Cambridge and Oxbridge’s long-standing class role, decades of market influences, and protected by the pseudo-left’s focus on identity politics. This analysis explores the historical, political, and economic factors that made the Arday case both unavoidable and inevitable.

Cambridge: Eight Centuries of Class Rule

To understand Cambridge’s behaviour, it’s important to look at its origins. Founded in 1209, Cambridge has long served the ruling class, with its architecture, rituals, and governance acting as tools to perpetuate elite dominance. Historically, Oxford and Cambridge have functioned as training grounds for clergy, civil servants, judges, and political leaders. They also serve as gatekeepers of cultural capital, shaping standards of ‘merit,” and as networks that strengthen aristocratic and bourgeois influence. The colleges were endowed by monarchs, bishops, and wealthy patrons, with governance structures — led by fellows, donors, and senior administrators — designed to maintain privilege rather than democratize knowledge.

The 2019 Sutton Trust report highlighted this continuity: 71% of senior judges, 56% of Permanent Secretaries, 38% of Lords, and 24% of MPs had been educated at Oxford or Cambridge. The elite are twenty-four times more likely to have attended Oxbridge compared to the general population. This pattern is deliberate, as Oxbridge’s prestige functions as a political asset, legitimizing the authority of the ruling class by portraying privilege as merit. It is this prestige—rather than academic quality—that Cambridge aimed to protect in the Arday case.

Marketisation: How Policy Turned Universities into Corporations

The Arday scandal is closely linked to the changes in UK higher education over the last 30 years. Starting with the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act and advancing with the Browne Review in 2010, successive governments reduced public funding and promoted market competition. Between 2011–12 and 2017–18, government funding for universities decreased by 74 per cent in real terms. Currently, 80 per cent of the sector’s income comes from private sources, mainly student fees and commercial activities.

Universities now operate like corporations: they issue bonds worth hundreds of millions of pounds, hold credit ratings from Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, and have vice-chancellors acting as CEOs earning over £400,000. Marketing departments have grown to rival academic faculties in size and influence. Students are viewed as customers rather than learners. Academic staff often work on insecure, casualised contracts. This market-driven approach has transformed university life: research is prioritised for grant attraction, teaching for attracting fee-paying students, and public relations for drawing donors and international applicants.

In this context, “diversity” branding functions more as a market strategy than a moral stance. Universities vie for lucrative international students, mainly from China, India, and the Gulf, who pay between £25,000 and £40,000 annually. A professor with a biography that attracts positive media coverage becomes a valuable asset. Arday’s rapid ascent—from a PE lecturer to a Cambridge professor in just seven years—was not an isolated case. Instead, it exemplifies a system where personal stories are commercialised to serve institutional interests.

Arday’s background—overcoming adversity, late literacy, racial uplift—aligned well with Cambridge’s marketing goals. His appointment received extensive positive press, boosted social-media engagement, and increased international recognition. Multiple sources report that concerns about his doctoral thesis were dismissed as issues ‘predating his arrival.’ Senior staff prioritised positive media images over detailed academic review. The university’s communications team promoted Arday’s story worldwide. This pattern is not unusual; systemic incentives drive it. In a market-based system: prestige brings in revenue, visibility attracts students, and narratives enhance brand value. Conversely, academic integrity rarely generates revenue and can even threaten financial interests.

The Pseudo‑Left: Identity Politics as an Ideological Shield

The pseudo-left—comprising academics, commentators, and activists advocating for identity politics while neglecting class issues—plays a significant role in maintaining the ideological structure of market-driven higher education. In universities, identity politics acts as a form of institutional cover: it offers a low-cost alternative to increasing access for the working class, helps elite institutions project progressive credentials, boosts individuals whose profiles can be commodified, and shifts focus away from academic labour exploitation. The pseudo-left celebrated Arday’s appointment as a victory for representation, overlooking the fact that Cambridge’s student body remains predominantly privileged and its governance retains an aristocratic character.

Right‑Wing Reaction: Meritocracy as a Myth

The right-wing campaign against Arday, led by individuals who openly promote racist pseudoscience, isn’t driven by a genuine concern for academic standards. Instead, it’s fuelled by hostility toward any hiring practices that challenge traditional class privilege. However, the right and the pseudo-left are not truly opponents; they represent two facets of petty-bourgeois politics. The pseudo-left hides its class privilege through identity branding, while the right criticises that branding to defend their own class interests. Both factions support the marketisation of higher education, uphold the authority of elite institutions, and ignore capitalism’s role in fostering corruption, inequality, and intellectual decline. The working class faces a false dichotomy: embracing DEI branding or subscribing to right-wing meritocracy. Both are illusions.

The Real Issue: The Corruption of Higher Education Under Capitalism

The Arday scandal does not highlight failures in vetting but instead reveals a deeper systemic issue where education has become a commodity, universities are part of global financial markets, academic labour is increasingly casualised and degraded, bureaucracy employs identity politics to conceal class privilege, and both the right and pseudo-left manipulate DEI controversies — the right to reinforce privilege and the pseudo-left to defend branding. Both sides uphold the university as a means of maintaining class dominance.

Workers and students must oppose both the pseudo-left, which defends university branding, and the right-wing, which criticises DEI. The fight for academic integrity is fundamentally connected to the broader struggle for socialism. A truly democratic and academically rigorous university system depends on: public funding as the basis for higher education, democratic control by staff and students, the elimination of managerial bureaucracies, an end to market competition and private investment, and the socialist transformation of society where education is viewed as a social right. Only through such a transformation can universities stop serving as instruments of class privilege and become what they are meant to be: institutions committed to the cultural and scientific progress of humanity.

The Bezos–Saverin–Bhatia Bid for Liverpool: The Financial Oligarchy Tightens Its Grip on World Football

~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

The upcoming acquisition of a significant stake in Liverpool FC by a consortium led by Amit Bhatia, backed by Jeff Bezos and Eduardo Saverin, signals a new phase in turning football into a domain for the global financial elite. Reports suggest the group is nearing a stake exceeding 30 per cent, valuing the club at approximately £4.4 billion ($5.9–6 billion). An announcement is likely soon.

This development is part of a larger trend where all aspects of social life—such as sport, culture, media, and technology—are increasingly controlled and reshaped by a small group of billionaires. Their wealth comes from exploiting workers worldwide. Football, originally a sport for the working class, is now being integrated into the same financial and technological systems that govern logistics, surveillance, AI, and global finance.

A New Phase in the Oligarchic Capture of Football

Liverpool’s potential new investors hail from the most privileged echelons of global capitalism. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, amassed his enormous wealth through the ruthless exploitation of hundreds of thousands of workers, who faced poverty wages, constant surveillance by algorithms, and dangerous productivity targets. His fortune grew significantly during the pandemic, as Amazon employees endured hazardous working conditions. Bezos is not simply a “sports investor”; he exemplifies American financial capitalism at its most predatory. Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook, renounced his US citizenship to dodge taxes and moved to Singapore. His wealth originates from a social media empire built on surveillance, data extraction, and the promotion of reactionary content through algorithms.

Amit Bhatia, son-in-law of steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, belongs to a global elite whose wealth relies on exploiting workers across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. His abrupt divestment from Queens Park Rangers on the day Liverpool’s bid emerged highlights the financial manoeuvring — regulatory arbitrage and share shuffling — typical of Today’s oligarchy. The inclusion of these figures in Liverpool’s ownership signifies a significant shift. While under Fenway Sports Group (FSG), Liverpool was primarily considered a financial asset. John Henry played a key role in proposing the 2021 European Super League, aiming to replace the competitive league system with a closed cartel that would secure ongoing revenue for the wealthiest clubs. This plan, backed by JPMorgan Chase, was ultimately stopped by widespread fan resistance.

Now the club is being passed from one set of billionaires to another — but this time to individuals whose wealth is measured not in billions but in hundreds of billions.

Football as a Financial Instrument

Liverpool’s valuation at £4.4 billion highlights the sport’s dramatic transformation. Originally founded in 1892 by working-class individuals, the club now has a value that could support the NHS for months. The financialization of football emphasises club worth based on anticipated future revenues, global branding, and digital engagement rather than sporting success. In Marxist terms, football has become part of fictitious capital — claims on future value instead of current output. Clubs are traded like tech stocks, with valuations serving as speculative tools. Their ownership resembles that of a multinational. The Bezos–Saverin–Bhatia consortium is not investing in football as a sport. Instead, they view it as: a content source for Amazon’s media empire, a data collection point for feeding Amazon’s AI systems, a global brand asset integrated into Amazon’s retail and advertising networks, and a financial tool for the portfolios of the world’s wealthiest individuals.

The Conflict‑of‑Interest Question: A Window into the System

A key aspect of the deal is the unresolved question of whether an investor holding a stake in the Premier League broadcaster Amazon Prime Video can also own part of a Premier League club. This is primarily a political issue, not a technical one. The Premier League’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test does not impose significant restrictions on such cross-ownership. In reality, the capitalist system enforces regulations only when they do not conflict with the interests of the ruling class. When billionaires are involved, these rules are often treated as mere “guidelines.”

If the deal goes through unchallenged, it establishes a precedent: broadcasters might own clubs, clubs could control broadcasters, and a few oligarchs could vertically integrate the complete ecosystem. These same individuals would own the product, distribution channels, and ways of consumption. This represents the Americanization of football — not culturally, but in its structure.

Liverpool’s Sporting Transition: Irrelevant to Capital

Liverpool secured the Premier League title in 2025 but is currently going through a transition phase. Manager Arne Slot has left, Mohamed Salah has departed, and Michael Edwards has exited FSG. Despite significant spending, the club finished fifth last season. From the consortium’s perspective, these developments are mainly relevant for their impact on the asset’s valuation. At this level, a football club functions more as an investment vehicle than a sporting entity, serving purposes like capital appreciation, brand leverage, and generating broadcast and commercial income from a global fanbase.

Speculation that Bezos and Saverin might aim for full control is plausible. For wealthy individuals like them, holding a minority stake is not an end goal but a strategic foothold.

The Broader Pattern: The Oligarchy Consolidates Its Power

The shift to Liverpool reflects a wider trend. By 2026, Bezos has invested billions in AI companies, grown Blue Origin’s aerospace activities, and co-led a $12 billion funding round for Prometheus, an industrial AI firm now valued at $41 billion. The same elite pushing humanity toward global conflict — as the WSWS detailed during the 2026 World Cup — is also consolidating control over all aspects of social life.

The 2026 World Cup showcased glaring signs of capitalist excess: generating $15 billion in revenue, with dynamic ticket prices soaring to over $10,000, luxury hospitality packages costing more than an average worker’s yearly income, and the trophy transported in a Louis Vuitton trunk. Football is increasingly being marketed as a luxury item for the wealthy and a global advertising tool for corporations. The Bezos group’s interest in Liverpool aligns with these trends, representing the broader process of expropriating everything the working class has built by a parasitic financial elite.

The Marxist Perspective: Expropriate the Oligarchy

The banners at Anfield during the 2021 Super League revolt — “Created by the poor, stolen by the rich” — summed up the situation well. But the real solution isn’t better regulation, fan representation, or a “50+1” rule. These measures leave the core capitalist ownership model untouched. Football can’t be truly democratised under capitalism because the logic of capital is all-encompassing. Every reform risks new forms of exploitation. The only genuine solution is to expropriate the oligarchs, transform football clubs into democratic entities run by players, workers, and supporters, and replace capitalism with a socialist society where sport, like healthcare, education, and housing, is a public good instead of a means for billionaire profit.

Podcast Episode: The Yahoo Boys: A Portrait of Global Loneliness and the Criminality of Capitalis

~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

Pip: When capitalism hollows out a country's economy and leaves millions with nothing, it turns out some of those millions get very good at the internet — and freerein61 has been paying close attention.

Mara: This episode follows a single, sprawling piece of analysis built around Carlos Barragán's book The Yahoo Boys — covering Nigerian cybercrime, structural adjustment, Western loneliness, and what the pseudo-left gets wrong about all of it. Let's start with the portrait itself: who the Yahoo Boys are and what actually produced them.

The Yahoo Boys: Capitalism's Surplus Population Goes Online

Pip: The central argument here is that Nigerian romance scammers are not a moral failure or a cultural quirk — they are a predictable output of a global economic system that deliberately destroyed the formal economy they were supposed to enter.

Mara: The book opens with something personal: Barragán's own mother, alone in Madrid, was deceived by a fake American soldier named "Brian." That starting point frames what follows, and the post draws the structural conclusion directly — "The Yahoo Boys are not anomalies but expected outcomes of IMF, World Bank, and multinational oil policies that have exploited Nigeria's resources and left millions unemployed and in poverty."

Pip: So the scam targeting his mother becomes the lens for understanding a generation. The upshot is that the infrastructure of exploitation runs in both directions — resources extracted from Nigeria, loneliness manufactured in the West, and a generation of young men positioned exactly at the intersection.

Mara: The numbers make that concrete. Nigeria's oil sector employs fewer than 65,000 direct workers in a country with a 70-million-strong workforce. Textile employment collapsed from 350,000 jobs to 25,000. Official youth unemployment sits at 27 percent, and over 100 million people live in poverty. The formal economy did not fail on its own — it was systematically dismantled.

Pip: And into that vacuum steps Tinder.

Mara: Exactly — the post names the platforms explicitly. Tinder, Instagram, Apple IDs, gift cards: these become, as the analysis puts it, "the only viable labour market." Barragán profiles four scammers — Biggy, Chibuike, Azeez, and Richie — with enough specificity that they register as people shaped by intolerable conditions rather than cartoon villains.

Pip: The most cited line in the book is apparently a market observation, not a punchline. "White men pay fast, but white women pay long" — that is a worker analyzing the emotional economies of the global North with genuine precision.

Mara: And the victims are not wealthy elites. They are pensioners, widows, and insecure workers — people whose own communities were dismantled by the same neoliberal policies that destroyed Nigeria's industrial base. The post is careful on this point: the scams do not redistribute wealth, they transfer suffering from one section of the global working class to another.

Pip: Which is why the pseudo-left's response to all of this turns out to matter quite a bit.

Mara: The post spends considerable time on that. Identity politics framing — "Black resistance," "hustle culture," "postcolonial survival" — obscures the class dynamics entirely. It allows critics to condemn "whiteness" while leaving IMF conditionalities, currency devaluations, and multinational oil extraction completely untouched. The scammers get cast as symbols rather than analyzed as products of structural adjustment.

Pip: And the victims get dismissed as privileged rather than recognized as people whose unions, communities, and social supports were also systematically stripped away.

Mara: The post's conclusion is that moral condemnation and police crackdowns address none of this. The Yahoo Boys are not the system's anomaly — they are its signal.

Mara: That signal points outward from Lagos to a worldwide pattern of surplus populations and broken social bonds — which is where the broader argument lands.

Pip: What stays with me is the gift card that travels from a victim in the U.S. through Nigerian middlemen to Chinese vendors — cybercrime as a fully integrated node in the global economy.

Mara: Barragán calls it a warning: when a system provides no future for its youth and commodifies human connection, the consequences are destabilizing everywhere. That framing doesn't go away when you close the book.

The Yahoo Boys: A Portrait of Global Loneliness and the Criminality of Capitalism

~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

Carlos Barragán’s The Yahoo Boys offers a disturbing yet insightful look into the world of investigative journalism. It explores one of the most grotesque consequences of the global capitalist crisis: Nigerian online romance scammers who prey on the loneliness and desperation of individuals in wealthy countries. The book avoids sensationalism and moral judgment, instead providing a sober, humane, and often harrowing account of young men in Lagos who turn to cyber-fraud because legitimate avenues for social mobility have collapsed.

Amid the deepening contradictions of global capitalism, this book explores the increasingly grotesque and tragic behaviours these contradictions produce. Based on six months of reporting in Lagos, it delves into the lives of the “Yahoo Boys”: young Nigerians who make a living by executing online romance scams targeting lonely individuals in Europe and the U.S. However, Barragán’s observations—often despite his own framing—reveal more than a typical crime story; they depict the social ruin caused by imperialist influence, structural adjustment, and capitalism’s fragmentation of daily life.

The book starts with a personal injury: Barragán’s mother, alone in Madrid, is tricked by a fake American soldier named “Brian.” The con artist is never caught. Instead, Barragán discovers a generation of Nigerian youth drawn into an underground digital economy after the formal economy has been systematically broken down. The “Yahoo Boys” are not anomalies but expected outcomes of IMF, World Bank, and multinational oil policies that have exploited Nigeria’s resources and left millions unemployed and in poverty.

Barragán portrays four scammers — Biggy, Chibuike, Azeez, and Richie — with striking specificity. Rather than caricatures of criminality, they appear as young men forced into a form of labour after other options have been shut off. Azeez, a tailor’s apprentice, faces the brutal arithmetic of survival in a country where inflation has made honest work untenable. Richie bears the psychological weight of a scam that ended in a victim’s death. In their world, the platforms of global capital — Tinder, Instagram, Apple IDs, and gift cards — become the only viable labour market.

The “Yahoo Boys”: A Product of Imperialist Plunder and Capitalist Decay

This reality affects a generation whose future has been damaged by imperialist reforms. Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy, has experienced decades of structural adjustment policies that have dismantled public services, privatised state assets, and put international financial interests above development. Consequently, many young people are seen as surplus to capital’s needs—often turning to digital fraud as a risky occupation. The “Yahoo Boys’—young Nigerians engaged in online scams like advance-fee fraud, romance fraud, and business email compromise—are often seen by bourgeois commentators as a moral crisis, a cultural failing, or issues stemming from weak law enforcement. However, a Marxist perspective reveals that they are not an anomaly. Instead, they are a predictable result of Nigeria’s systemic exploitation by imperialism and its local comprador bourgeoisie.

The economic reality that produces them

Nigeria, Africa’s biggest oil producer and most populous nation, has earned hundreds of billions of dollars from oil since gaining independence. However, as documented by the WSWS, Nigeria captures only about 10–15 per cent of the crude’s value at the wellhead. The remaining 80–90 per cent—generated through refining, petrochemicals, logistics, and finance—is siphoned off offshore by transnational corporations. Nigeria exports raw crude oil, and then imports refined gasoline at higher prices. According to Jean Shaoul’s detailed June 2026 analysis of Africa’s political economy, Nigeria exemplifies a system in which every profitable part of the oil value chain is systematically externalised.

The concrete consequences have been devastating. Nigeria’s oil sector employs less than 1 per cent of its 70-million-strong workforce — about 20,000 to 65,000 direct workers. In the 1970s and 1980s, the influx of petrodollars inflated the currency, made domestic goods uncompetitive, and gutted agriculture and manufacturing. Textile employment collapsed from 350,000 jobs to just 25,000, with nothing to replace what was lost. The result is mass unemployment — officially 27 per cent, and far higher among young people — while 102 million people, more than half the population, live in poverty.

The Yahoo Boys phenomenon originates from the economic marginalisation faced by many young Nigerians, many of whom are university graduates with skills, ambition, internet access, and fluency in English. Despite these assets, they encounter limited legitimate job opportunities. As a result, they are forced to choose between honest employment and criminal activity, or develop alternative survival strategies within an economy intentionally designed to exclude them.

The comprador state and the real criminals

Nigeria’s ruling class—a comprador bourgeoisie acting as an intermediary layer that benefits from foreign capital—continues to oversee this social disaster while accumulating vast personal wealth. Aliko Dangote is Africa’s richest individual, and Nigeria’s four billionaires have experienced a significant increase in their fortunes. Meanwhile, the government depends on police units like the infamous SARS (Special Anti-Robbery Squad), which has been linked to extortion, kidnapping, torture, and extrajudicial killings. These abuses overwhelmingly target young people aged 18 to 35, as documented by WSWS during the 2020 EndSARS protests.

The extent of theft by Nigeria’s ruling class—whether through embezzling state funds, corruptly granting oil concessions to transnational corporations, or systematically siphoning public revenue into private accounts—far exceeds what Yahoo Boys could achieve. The key difference is that this form of theft is legal and often celebrated, while internet fraud is criminalised and penalised. Ironically, the very state condemning internet fraud is actually the largest criminal enterprise in Nigeria.

Not a revolutionary force, but a symptom

None of this is to romanticise the Yahoo Boys. Their activity is not a form of anti-imperialist resistance. It is an individualistic, lumpen response to social conditions that preys indiscriminately on working people abroad while enriching a layer of young men who often flaunt their wealth in ways that reproduce the values of the very bourgeoisie that has destroyed their country. The Yahoo Boys do not challenge the system — they aspire to join its beneficiaries.

The moral condemnation of Nigerian cybercriminals by the Nigerian government and Western media is deeply hypocritical. The same imperialist nations criticising these hackers have corporations that drain Nigeria’s resources, making honest work impossible. Similarly, Nigerian officials who vow to crack down are often the ones who have looted the treasury. The Yahoo Boys’ actions reflect a broken social system, not its root problem. Tackling this issue requires more than increased police, surveillance, or moral lectures. True change involves societal transformation through socialism—taking control of oil from multinational and local partners, organising Nigeria’s productive sectors to create decent jobs for everyone, and building global worker solidarity to oppose capitalism, which causes poverty and crime. Nigerian youth don’t need sermons; they need a revolution.

Barragán’s access to these young men — their routines, chat logs, and self-justifications — enables an account that is both intimate and socially devastating. Rather than cartoon villains, they emerge as people shaped by intolerable conditions: mass unemployment, decaying infrastructure, and the extreme inequality that marks Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy and one of its most fractured societies.

Loneliness as a global commodity

Barragán’s notable insight is that the Yahoo Boys have harnessed a new resource for global capitalism: loneliness. In Europe and the U.S., years of social fragmentation, declining living standards, and weakened community ties have left millions feeling isolated. Scammers exploit this vulnerability with precision, weaving complex tales of love, military duties, grief, and financial hardship. Their targets are mainly working-class individuals — pensioners, widows, insecure workers, and others pushed aside by social structures — who seek connection. These scams succeed because capitalism has fostered significant social dislocation in the West.

Barragán does not excuse the scammers, but he refuses to reduce them to moral aberrations. Their actions grow out of the catastrophic failure of Nigerian capitalism: staggering youth unemployment, unreliable electricity, underfunded education, entrenched corruption, and a ruling elite enriched by oil revenues and foreign investment while abandoning an entire generation. In this context, cyber-fraud becomes a rational, if destructive, means of survival. The Yahoo Boys often justify themselves by invoking colonialism and global inequality — “We are taking back what the West stole” — but this pseudo-radical rhetoric collapses under scrutiny. Their victims are not imperialist governments or multinational corporations, but ordinary working people. The scams do not redistribute wealth; they transfer suffering from one section of the global working class to another.

Barragán’s book unintentionally highlights the limited capacity of individual actions during social collapse. The Yahoo Boys see themselves as rebelling against the global system, yet they rely entirely on its infrastructure: Western social media, international payment platforms, Chinese gift-card resellers, and the interconnected digital networks that sustain the global economy. Their form of “resistance” is more parasitic than revolutionary, leaving Nigeria’s ruling elite unaffected, failing to challenge imperialism, and ultimately worsening the social fragmentation and cynicism that capitalism fosters. The scammers are not opponents of the system but rather its desperate, informal offshoots.

The Yahoo Boys and the World Capitalist Swindle

One of the most revealing parts of the book details a gift card taken from a victim in the U.S. It travels through Nigerian middlemen, is laundered on online marketplaces, and finally ends up with Chinese vendors. This chain reveals how modern capitalism encompasses even fraudulent romance as part of a global system of value extraction. Barragán’s investigation demonstrates that cybercrime isn’t separate from capitalism but a sign of its decline: the same issues—unemployment, inequality, and social collapse—that give rise to the Yahoo Boys are present worldwide in various forms.

Barragán’s reporting clearly illustrates this labor process. The Yahoo Boys establish their own division of tasks, terminology, and social structures. They are skilled in algorithms, adaptable, and entrepreneurial within the limited scope allowed by their environment. Their main offering is manufactured intimacy — a commodity derived from Western victims’ loneliness. The book’s most referenced line, “white men pay fast, but white women pay long,” is not a joke but an insightful market analysis by workers who have become experts in the emotional economies of the global North.

The Yahoo Boys are more than just Nigerian romance scammers; they represent a part of the worldwide cybercrime scene, which has emerged from neoliberalism’s fallout and is driven by the despair of millions left behind by capitalism. These individuals are not exotic criminals, but the marginalized children of a global system that provides them with no prospects. The young men Barragán encounters in Lagos are products of a society eroded by years of IMF austerity measures, oil industry exploitation, and a parasitic Nigerian bourgeoisie. Youth unemployment is dire; education systems are failing; infrastructure is minimal. In such circumstances, cyber-fraud shifts from being a moral issue to a necessary survival tactic. However, Lagos is just one part of a worldwide network. West Africa is known for romance scams and “419” fraud; Southeast Asia hosts large-scale scam operations dependent on trafficked labour; Eastern Europe produces ransomware and other cybercrimes; China engages in money laundering through extensive grey markets; and the West provides both victims and digital infrastructure. This situation isn’t traditional crime but rather the informal labour market characteristic of modern capitalism.

Barragán’s key insight is that the Yahoo Boys exploit loneliness, which is the West’s often overlooked epidemic. Years of social fragmentation, declining living standards, and weakening community bonds have driven millions into isolation. These scammers do more than take money; they demand emotional effort, offering digital intimacy to those left behind by society. Their victims are not affluent elites but pensioners, widows, and insecure workers — all victims of the same system that created the scammers.

The Yahoo Boys and the Pseudo‑Lefts

Carlos Barragán’s The Yahoo Boys highlights the social crisis in Nigeria, but its true meaning becomes clear when viewed in the context of the politics of developed capitalist nations, especially the pseudo-left’s role. The Yahoo Boys—young Nigerians resorting to digital scams to survive—are not just a social anomaly but a sign of capitalism’s worldwide crisis, a reality that the pseudo-left has often hidden with identity politics, moralism, and middle-class focus.

Barragán’s book highlights two interconnected tragedies: the decline of youth in Lagos and the profound loneliness of millions in the West. Both stem from the same global system. However, the pseudo-left—comprising NGOs, academic radicals, lifestyle progressives, and those aligned with the US Democratic Party or Labour’s Blairite and soft-left factions in Britain—refuses to see this link. It attributes Nigerian suffering to “corruption,” “bad governance,” or “postcolonial trauma,” while dismissing Western workers’ pain as “toxic masculinity,” “misinformation,” or “individual vulnerability.” In each case, the underlying class dynamics of the crisis are often hidden.

The pseudo‑lefts’ moralism: a substitute for analysis

The pseudo-left often reacts to phenomena like the Yahoo Boys with either moral condemnation or nostalgic pity. They label the scammers as misogynists, exploiters, or “digital predators,” while also romanticizing them as victims of “global inequality.” In both perspectives, the scammers’ class background is overlooked. Instead of viewing them as products of systemic issues like IMF-driven structural adjustments, resource exploitation, and the decline of Nigeria’s industrial sector, they are cast as characters in a moral story.

This moral stance is deliberate, representing the beliefs of a privileged middle class whose material gains rely on maintaining capitalism. The pseudo-lefts refuse to recognize the structural causes of the Yahoo Boys’ rise, because admitting this would reveal the influence of Western imperialism — encompassing the institutions they back, the governments they choose, and the NGOs they fund — in fostering the environment that pushes Nigerian youth into digital fraud.

Pseudo-left groups often analyze global inequality primarily through identity politics. They describe Nigeria’s crisis as “Black suffering,” “postcolonial wounds,” or “racial capitalism,” instead of pointing to specific causes like IMF conditionalities, currency devaluations, privatization, and the exploitation of oil wealth by multinational corporations. This racialized framing serves a clear purpose: it enables them to criticize “whiteness” while ignoring the broader global mechanisms of capital.

In this perspective, the Yahoo Boys are seen not as products of structural adjustment but as symbols of “Black resistance,” “hustle culture,” or “diasporic survival.” Their victims, typically older Western women, are often dismissed as manifestations of “white fragility” or “privilege,” instead of being recognized as victims of neoliberal atomization that has dismantled unions, communities, and social supports. Consequently, identity politics serves its main ideological role: dividing the working class into racial, gendered, and cultural segments and hindering a unified understanding of the global crisis.

Barragán highlights the deep loneliness experienced by Western victims, many of whom send money to scammers over years due to their near-total isolation. The pseudo-lefts interpret this loneliness as a psychological issue — labeling it as “emotional labour,” “gendered vulnerability,” or “digital manipulation” — but fail to see it as a class issue caused by capitalism’s dismantling of collective institutions.

The pseudo-lefts often deny this truth because they have historically supported policies like privatization, austerity, union-busting, and promoting ‘flexibility,’ which have contributed to social atomization. Their politics tend to originate from the professional-managerial class, which has gained materially from neoliberal reforms while claiming to champion ‘social justice.” The Yahoo Boys are not rare exceptions but are emblematic of a global system that creates excess populations in the Global South and marginalizes groups in the Global North. They are workers pushed into digital black markets due to the collapse of formal economies; their victims are those whose social structures have been broken down. The pseudo-lefts avoid confronting this reality because it reveals their own complicity. Having abandoned meaningful critiques of capitalism, they resort to moral performances, academic jargon, and outrage that lacks deep analysis. As a result, class struggle is replaced by identity politics, internationalism by NGO-driven humanitarianism, and socialism by lifestyle choices.

The Yahoo Boys are more than just criminals; they are victims of imperialism, and their victims are not simply naïve but also victims of social fragmentation. These scams reflect a worldwide crisis that the ruling class fails to address effectively. The same forces behind widespread unemployment in Nigeria also foster loneliness in Europe and the U.S. Similarly, digital platforms that facilitate gig economy exploitation also support romance scam schemes. The capitalist system that erodes livelihoods in Lagos is equally responsible for breaking social ties in Los Angeles.

Barragán’s book is important because it provides essential insight into this crisis. It offers a detailed account of what occurs when a generation excluded from formal jobs resorts to the only available labor market. However, this description must be linked to the broader history of imperialist control, structural adjustments, and the breakdown of capitalist society. Only through this context can the true significance of the Yahoo Boys be understood.

Moral condemnation, police crackdowns, and digital literacy campaigns are insufficient solutions to the worldwide crisis that yields both scammers and victims. This crisis can only be addressed by dismantling the economic system that has resulted in surplus populations, broken communities, and the commodification of intimacy. The Yahoo Boys are not exceptions but signals of a future where millions more could be forced into similar survival strategies unless a united international working class acts to overthrow the system behind this disaster.

Barragán’s achievement

The strength of The Yahoo Boys lies in its refusal to dehumanize its subjects. Barragán shows their contradictions, cruelty, humor, aspirations, and failures. He avoids romanticizing or demonizing them, instead placing them within the context of a broader crisis affecting a world system incapable of providing stable, meaningful lives for billions. In this way, the book aligns with the tradition of honest, socially conscious reporting praised by the WSWS for films like Eyimofe. It dismisses exoticism and moral panic, focusing instead on a straightforward analysis of the conditions that shape human behavior.

The Yahoo Boys is more than just a book about Nigerian scammers; it explores the worldwide crisis of capitalism—a system that fosters loneliness in the West and desperation in the Global South, linking both through exploitation and deception. Barragán’s work should be seen not as a crime story but as a warning: when society neglects its youth, leaves millions hopeless, and commodifies human relationships, the consequences will be destructive, unpredictable, and deeply destabilizing.

Sources and Bibliography

Books and Monographs

Ake, Claude. Democracy and Development in Africa. Brookings Institution Press, 1996. A foundational critique of how structural adjustment destroyed African developmental capacity.

Amin, Samir. Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism. Monthly Review Press, 1976. Classic analysis of dependency and the global division of labour.

Barragán, Carlos. The Yahoo Boys: Love, Deception, and the Real Lives of Nigeria’s Romance Scammers. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2026. Primary text under review.

Bello, Walden. The Food Wars. Verso, 2009. Useful for understanding how IMF/World Bank policies create surplus populations.

Berman, Bruce. Control and Crisis in Colonial Kenya. James Currey, 1990. A model for analysing colonial labour structures that applies to Nigeria’s postcolonial trajectory.

Brenner, Robert. The Economics of Global Turbulence. Verso, 2006. Key text on the long downturn and global capitalist restructuring.

Comaroff, Jean and John Comaroff. Theft of History. Cambridge University Press, 2006. Important for understanding the commodification of identity and pseudo‑left cultural politics.

Davis, Mike. Planet of Slums. Verso, 2006. Essential for situating Lagos within global patterns of urban immiseration.

Ferguson, James. Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order. Duke University Press, 2006. A central text for understanding how neoliberalism produces informal economies.

Gore, Charles. The Rise and Fall of Structural Adjustment. Oxford University Press, 2021. Directly relevant to Nigeria’s economic collapse.

Guyer, Jane. Marginal Gains: Monetary Transactions in Atlantic Africa. University of Chicago Press, 2004. Important for understanding informal monetary economies.

Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press, 2005. Key text on the global restructuring that produced both Nigerian immiseration and Western loneliness.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Managed Heart: Commercialisation of Human Feeling. University of California Press, 1983. Useful for theorising the “manufacture of intimacy” as labour.

Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine. Metropolitan Books, 2007. On the political logic of IMF/World Bank interventions.

Marx, Karl. Capital: Volume I. Penguin Classics, 1990. Foundational for understanding surplus populations, labour markets, and exploitation.

Mbembe, Achille. On the Postcolony. University of California Press, 2001. Useful for understanding the political economy of African states under neoliberalism.

Meagher, Kate. Identity Economics: Social Networks and the Informal Economy in Nigeria. James Currey, 2010. Directly relevant to Yahoo Boys’ informal labour networks.

Sassen, Saskia. Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy. Harvard University Press, 2014. On how global capitalism produces surplus populations.

Standing, Guy. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. Bloomsbury Academic, 2011. Useful for situating Yahoo Boys within global precarity.

Tilly, Charles. Coercion, Capital, and European States. Wiley‑Blackwell, 1992. For understanding state formation and disintegration under capitalism.

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Routledge, 2001. Useful for contrasting moral framings of labour with materialist analysis.

Articles and Reports

Adesina, Jimi O. “Rethinking African Development: Beyond Impoverishing Adjustment.” Journal of International Development 16, no. 6 (2004): 825–846. On the destructive impact of structural adjustment.

Akinyoade, Akinyinka, and Chibuike Uche. “Oil and the Rentier State in Nigeria.” African Affairs 115, no. 459 (2016): 1–23. On oil extraction and elite capture.

Burgis, Tom. “The Looting Machine.” Financial Times, 2015. Investigative reporting on multinational extraction in Nigeria.

Guyer, Jane. “Marginal Gains and Monetary Transactions in Africa.” Africa 74, no. 3 (2004): 389–405. On informal economies.

International Monetary Fund. Nigeria: Structural Adjustment Program Review. IMF Country Report, various years. Primary documentation of IMF policies.

Meagher, Kate. “Informal Economies and the State in Africa.” African Studies Review 47, no. 1 (2004): 1–15, on informal labour networks.

Nwankwo, Chima. “Youth Unemployment and Informal Economies in Lagos.” Journal of Modern African Studies 57, no. 2 (2019): 245–268. Directly relevant to Yahoo Boys.

World Bank. Nigeria Economic Update. Various years. On inflation, unemployment, and currency crises.

Digital Labour, Scamming Economies, and Platform Capitalism

Abidin, Crystal. “Digital Intimacy and Platform Labour.” Social Media + Society 4, no. 3 (2018). Useful for theorising intimacy as labour.

Brunton, Finn, and Helen Nissenbaum. Obfuscation: A User’s Guide for Privacy and Protest. MIT Press, 2015. On digital deception as a rational response to surveillance capitalism.

Gershon, Ilana. “The Breakup 2.0: Disconnecting over New Media.” Cornell University Press, 2010. On digital intimacy and loneliness.

Marwick, Alice. “The Public Domain: Social Media and the Commodification of Attention.” New Media & Society 15, no. 3 (2013). On attention economies.

Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs, 2019. On platform capitalism’s extraction of human behaviour.

Pseudo‑Lefts, Identity Politics, and the Professional‑Managerial Class

Brenner, Johanna. “Identity Politics and the Left.” Monthly Review 48, no. 2 (1996). Classic critique of identity politics.

Fraser, Nancy. “From Progressive Neoliberalism to Trump.” American Affairs 1, no. 4 (2017): 46–64. On the alliance between the pseudo‑left and neoliberalism.

Lind, Michael. The New Class War. Atlantic Books, 2020. On the professional‑managerial class.

Reed, Adolph. “The Limits of Anti‑Racism.” Left Business Observer, 2000. Foundational critique of pseudo‑left racial politics.

Reed, Adolph, and Walter Benn Michaels. “The Trouble with Disparity.” Jacobin, 2015. On how identity politics obscures class.

WSWS Editorial Board. Various analyses on identity politics, pseudo‑left tendencies, and global capitalism. Essential for the political framing.

Historical and Theoretical Foundations

Lenin, V. I. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. For understanding global extraction and surplus populations.

Luxemburg, Rosa. The Accumulation of Capital. On capitalism’s need for external markets and the creation of surplus populations.

Trotsky, Leon. The Permanent Revolution. On uneven and combined development — crucial for understanding Nigeria’s position.

Trotsky, Leon. History of the Russian Revolution. Methodologically relevant for analysing class forces.

Alabama Shakes and the Crisis of the American Dream

~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

Alabama Shakes’ return after nearly a decade has prompted the mainstream press to respond with its usual blend of breathless anticipation and superficial speculation. Much of the coverage falls back on familiar clichés about “nostalgia,” “reunion energy,” and the band “returning to what they do best.” Repeated across the music press, these phrases say less about Alabama Shakes than about the intellectual limits of contemporary cultural criticism.

A serious assessment must begin with the conditions surrounding this reunion. In 2026, the United States is marked by deep inequality, political instability, and cultural confusion. The “American Dream,” invoked in the band’s lead single, is not simply a poetic image but a historically specific ideology whose failure is now widely recognised. The gap between the promise of upward mobility and the reality of widespread insecurity forms the backdrop to nearly all serious art today, and Alabama Shakes’ return is no exception.

Alabama Shakes, the “American Dream,” and the Cultural Opposition to Authoritarianism

The lack of any direct clash between Alabama Shakes and the current fascists in the White House — no stage denunciation, no Truth Social outburst, no headline-making confrontation — is telling. It does not suggest political neutrality, but points to a deeper feature of the present: artists are being pulled into political conflict less through personal disputes than through the objective pressures of social life. The band’s 2025–26 return comes at a moment when cultural expression can no longer be separated from the political regime. That is the context in which their new work must be understood.

Alabama Shakes fell silent in 2018, during the second year of Trump’s first term. Their 2025–26 return comes under markedly different conditions. The administration’s authoritarian course — attacks on democratic rights, incitement against political opponents, and the concentration of executive power — has created a climate in which artists, writers, and performers increasingly feel compelled to respond.

As cultural critic David Walsh noted earlier this year, this growing resistance “is beginning to find many important expressions, including among classical and popular musicians, actors, writers and even professional athletes.” Bruce Springsteen, Philip Glass, Renée Fleming, and Lucinda Williams have already taken public stands, while Trump’s rhetoric toward dissenting artists has become increasingly hostile. Alabama Shakes has not been directly involved in these confrontations, but its silence should not be confused with political absence.

The Political Weight of the Band’s Existence

The band’s significance does not depend on overt political statements. Brittany Howard — a Black, queer woman from Alabama — leads a group grounded in Black Southern musical traditions: soul, blues, gospel, and R&B. These forms grew out of histories of oppression and resistance and remain inseparable from the struggles of working-class and oppressed people in the Deep South. As a critically acclaimed, Black-led rock band from Alabama, Alabama Shakes carries political weight in a period of reactionary nationalism and racial incitement. This is not identity politics, but historical fact: American popular music, at its most authentic, has long expressed the experience of those subjected to exploitation and injustice. To work seriously within that tradition is itself a challenge to the ideological foundations of authoritarianism. The single “American Dream” sharpens this point. Its title rejects the myth of national health and upward mobility, making it anything but a neutral artistic gesture in 2026.

The Limits and Contradictions of Artistic Opposition

The limits of artistic resistance must also be acknowledged. The WSWS has repeatedly observed that, although more artists are prepared to speak out, political confusion remains the dominant tendency. Many recognise that something is deeply wrong, but lack a coherent framework for understanding its causes or how it might be overcome.

This contradiction is evident in the emotional structure of I Must Be Dreaming. Its movement between exhaustion and wonder — between despair and the search for beauty — is more than an aesthetic choice. It expresses the condition of artists who oppose authoritarianism but remain confined by the ideology of the existing social order. They reject the symptoms without yet grasping the underlying disease. This is not a criticism of Alabama Shakes, but a description of the artistic milieu’s broader political limitations.

The Real Question

The central issue is not whether Alabama Shakes will directly “take on Trump.” The more important question is whether their music can contribute, even indirectly, to a broader cultural shift in which the working class becomes conscious of its own power. Will I Must Be Dreaming remain a beautifully realised portrait of distress, capturing individuals trying to make sense of a collapsing social order? Or will it achieve something rarer: a clarity that cuts through the ideological fog and points, however tentatively, beyond the limits of the present?

The band’s history shows a capacity for seriousness, honesty, and artistic courage, though whether this will develop into more than emotional testimony remains uncertain. Their re-emergence is not simply an effort to recapture earlier success. Brittany Howard’s solo albums — Jaime (2019) and What Now (2024) — revealed a restless search for new forms, rhythms, and emotional registers. Far from side projects, they were necessary explorations that sharpened her artistic vocabulary and broadened the expressive range of her voice. The band’s decision to reunite after this development suggests not a retreat into the familiar, but a renewed effort to confront the contradictions of the present.

Producer Shawn Everett’s return underscores this development. Sound & Colour (2015) stood out among major-label releases of its era for resisting the flattened sound of commercial rock production. Everett preserved the band’s volatility — its sudden turns from quiet reflection to explosive force — without smoothing it into algorithmic uniformity. His involvement suggests a continued effort to push against the sonic limits of the streaming economy.

The Political Dimension: Mood as Symptom of Social Crisis

Reviewers have described “American Dream” as “political,” but usually in the loosest sense. Much contemporary music criticism treats politics as mood — a haze of “chaos,” “division,” or “uncertainty” — rather than as the outcome of concrete social forces. This is more than a methodological flaw; it reveals the ideological disorientation of a cultural layer that senses crisis but lacks the tools to explain it.

The album’s apparent movement between exhaustion and wonder, despair and longing, is more than an emotional palette. It reflects a society in which millions sense that something is deeply wrong but cannot yet articulate a coherent alternative. Artists, like workers, confront a system that promises opportunity while producing insecurity. In this context, the “American Dream” becomes both an object of desire and a symbol of betrayal.

Alabama Shakes are not presenting a political programme, nor should they be expected to. Their work instead captures, with unusual clarity, the emotional and ideological tensions of a society in crisis. The band’s return also reflects a music industry transformed over the past decade. Island Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group, operates in a system where streaming has devalued recorded music as a commodity, leaving albums to function chiefly as vehicles for touring, sync licensing, and catalogue valuation. With its critical reputation and cross-generational appeal, Alabama Shakes represents a substantial financial asset.

This does not diminish the artistic impulse behind the reunion. It does, however, place the band’s work within an industry increasingly organised around risk reduction and the monetisation of nostalgia. The tension between genuine artistic intent and commercial pressure is not unique to Alabama Shakes; it is a structural feature of cultural production under contemporary capitalism.

The Central Question: Clarity or Consolation

The question no preview can answer is whether the forthcoming album will simply combine the band’s earlier strengths — raw soul urgency and genre-crossing ambition — or reach for something harder: a clarity equal to the present moment. Can Alabama Shakes cut through the cultural fog of contemporary American life? Can they express, even indirectly, the contradictions of a society where hope endures after the collapse of the ideology that once sustained it? The early signs are encouraging, but the answer will only become clear when the full work is released.

Sources and Bibliography

Primary Sources: Music, Statements, and Industry Materials

  • Alabama Shakes. Sound & Colour. ATO Records, 2015.
  • Alabama Shakes. I Must Be Dreaming (forthcoming). Island Records / Universal Music Group, 2026.
  • Howard, Brittany. Jaime. ATO Records, 2019.
  • Howard, Brittany. What Now. Island Records, 2024.
  • Island Records / Universal Music Group. Corporate filings, annual reports, and investor communications (2015–2025).
  • RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). “2024 Year‑End Music Industry Revenue Report.”
  • IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry). Global Music Report (2020–2025).
  • Spotify Technology S.A. “Loud & Clear: Streaming Revenue Transparency Reports” (2021–2025).

WSWS Cultural and Political Analysis

  • Walsh, David. “Artists Speak Out Against Authoritarianism and Attacks on Democratic Rights.” World Socialist Web Site, January 2026.
  • Walsh, David. “The Crisis of American Democracy and the Role of Culture.” WSWS, 2025.
  • Walsh, David. “The Political and Cultural Significance of Bruce Springsteen’s Opposition.” WSWS, 2024.
  • D’Angelo, Tom. “The Music Industry in the Age of Streaming: Profit, Precarity, and the Working Artist.” WSWS, 2023.
  • Greene, Joanne Laurier. “The Social Crisis and Contemporary American Art.” WSWS, 2022.
  • North, David. The Crisis of American Democracy: Essays on Politics, Culture, and Class. Mehring Books, 2021.

Historical and Theoretical Works on Culture, Class, and Music

  • Adorno, Theodor W. Essays on Music. University of California Press, 2002.
  • Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Schocken Books, 1968.
  • Lipsitz, George. Time Passages: Collective Memory and American Popular Culture. University of Minnesota Press, 1990.
  • Guralnick, Peter. Sweet Soul Music: Rhythm and Blues and the Southern Dream of Freedom. Back Bay Books, 1999.
  • Ward, Brian. Just My Soul Responding: Rhythm and Blues, Black Consciousness, and Race Relations. University of California Press, 1998.
  • Filene, Benjamin. Romancing the Folk: Public Memory & American Roots Music. University of North Carolina Press, 2000.
  • Hobsbawm, Eric. Uncommon People: Resistance, Rebellion, and Jazz. Verso, 1998.
  • Jones, LeRoi (Amiri Baraka). Blues People: Negro Music in White America. William Morrow, 1963.

Studies of the American South, Race, and Cultural Production

  • Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution. Harper & Row, 1988.
  • Woodward, C. Vann. The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Oxford University Press, 1955.
  • Sugrue, Thomas J. Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North. Random House, 2008.
  • Romine, Scott. The Real South: Southern Narrative in the Age of Cultural Reproduction. LSU Press, 2008.

Music Industry Economics and Cultural Labour

  • Hesmondhalgh, David. The Cultural Industries. Sage, 2019.
  • Negus, Keith. Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. Routledge, 1999.
  • Meier, Leslie M. Popular Music as Promotion: Music and Branding in the Digital Age. Polity, 2016.
  • Marshall, Lee. “The Rise of Catalogue Valuation in the Streaming Era.” Journal of Popular Music Studies, 2023.
  • Baym, Nancy. Playing to the Crowd: Musicians, Audiences, and the Intimate Work of Connection. NYU Press, 2018.

Political Context and Authoritarianism

  • Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. Crown, 2018.
  • Ziblatt, Daniel, et al. “Democratic Backsliding in the 21st Century.” Journal of Democracy, 2024.
  • American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Reports on civil liberties and executive power (2020–2025).
  • Human Rights Watch. World Report (2024–2026).

Press Coverage and Interviews

  • Rolling Stone. Coverage of Alabama Shakes (2012–2024).
  • Pitchfork. Reviews of Sound & Colour, Jaime, and What Now.
  • New York Times. Interviews with Brittany Howard (2019, 2024).
  • NPR Music. “Brittany Howard on Artistic Growth and Political Climate.” (2024).
  • Billboard. “UMG Strategy in the Streaming Economy.” (2023–2025).

Archival and Reference Sources

  • Library of Congress. American Folklife Centre archives on Southern musical traditions.
  • Smithsonian Folkways. Collections on blues, gospel, and R&B.
  • Oxford Music Online. Entries on soul, Southern rock, and contemporary American music.

A review of Colin Kidd’s Twilight of the Dons: British Intellectuals from World War II to Thatcherism

~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

The Last Dons: The Collapse of Britain’s Bourgeois Intellectual Establishment

At its core, Colin Kidd’s Twilight of the Dons examines the terminal decline of a ruling-class intelligentsia. The “golden age” of Oxbridge dons was less a period of democratic intellectual flourishing than the final moment when a small academic elite exercised ideological authority on behalf of the British bourgeoisie. Although Kidd writes with affection for his subjects, his book inadvertently exposes the exhaustion of an entire social order and the inability of its intellectual representatives to understand the forces that displaced them.

A wartime bureaucracy becomes an ideological caste

Kidd’s central historical claim—that Oxbridge intellectuals rose to postwar prominence because of the Second World War—is wholly persuasive. Returning from Bletchley Park, Whitehall, and the intelligence services, these dons did not simply resume academic life; they were drawn into the machinery of the state. Their authority depended less on public engagement or democratic legitimacy than on Britain’s distinctive culture of elite deference.

This intelligentsia functioned as a manager of ideology. Figures such as Isaiah Berlin, Hugh Trevor‑Roper, Elizabeth Anscombe, and Edmund Leach were not detached from power; they helped justify it. The debates, rivalries, and feuds Kidd recounts with relish were the internal dramas of a caste whose role was to stabilise bourgeois rule after war and empire.

The tremors of crisis

Kidd’s narrative of the 1960s and 1970s is revealing. The student protests, curricular battles, and increasingly parochial academic disputes were not merely cultural episodes. They were symptoms of a deeper crisis: the erosion of the ideological authority of the bourgeois academy.

For the first time, the dons had to justify their role. The old assumptions—that Oxbridge defined national culture and that its professors naturally guided public life—began to collapse. Kidd presents these disturbances as early signs of Thatcherism, but they were better understood as expressions of the global capitalist crisis of the late 1960s, which shook the institutions built on postwar stability.

Kidd’s most striking insight—and the one closest to a Marxist reading—is that the dons were not overthrown by radical students or left-wing agitation, but by the right.

Thatcher’s government, serving finance capital and an assertive new managerial class, saw Oxbridge’s intellectual aristocracy as an obstacle to market discipline. Long accustomed to acting as an unelected arm of the state, the dons suddenly appeared as inefficient remnants of a paternalistic order the ruling class no longer required. The irony is central: the bourgeois intelligentsia was dismantled by the very class it had served. Thatcherism did not simply reform the universities; it destroyed the social foundations that had sustained Oxbridge’s ideological authority for decades.

Elegy from inside the citadel

Kidd’s account is intimate and nostalgic, as might be expected from a former Fellow of All Souls. It is richly detailed, but also limited by a key blindness: he laments the disappearance of an elite without fully examining the class relations that sustained it. The dons’ authority was never democratic; it rested on Britain’s rigid social hierarchy. Their decline was therefore not a cultural tragedy, but a sign of the wider decay of bourgeois intellectual life.

Why the book matters now

The significance of Twilight of the Dons lies not in its nostalgia, but in its unintended warning. The forces that dismantled the Oxbridge establishment—marketisation, managerialism, and austerity—now weigh on the entire university system. Today’s academic, deprived of autonomy and governed by bureaucratic metrics, is less the heir to Berlin or Trevor‑Roper than another casualty of the forces that displaced them.

Hugh Trevor‑Roper: The Bourgeois Historian as Court Intellectual

Hugh Trevor‑Roper is central to Colin Kidd’s Twilight of the Dons because he so clearly embodies the contradictions of the postwar Oxbridge intellectual caste. His career shows how the British ruling class depended on a narrow elite of academics to give its authority ideological coherence—and how that elite ultimately failed to grasp, much less resist, the forces that would displace it.

Trevor‑Roper was more than a historian. He was a court intellectual whose authority derived from proximity to power, social status, and Britain’s reverence for Oxbridge as guardian of national culture. His work advanced a view of British history that legitimised the existing order: rational, moderate, anti‑revolutionary, and deeply wary of mass politics.

The Don as Defender of the Establishment

Trevor‑Roper’s postwar prominence grew directly from the wartime experience that shaped Kidd’s generation of dons. His intelligence work gave him access to the state, a reputation for administrative competence, and the conviction that intellectual authority belonged within government. He emerged not as a radical critic, but as a trusted interpreter of Britain’s past for the ruling class. Whether writing on the Puritans, the Civil War, or historical method, he reinforced a conservative narrative in which national stability depended on elite stewardship and resistance to ideological extremes. In this sense, Trevor‑Roper acted as an ideological stabiliser, helping sustain bourgeois hegemony during the fragile postwar settlement.

Kidd emphasises Trevor‑Roper’s legendary feuds — with A.J.P. Taylor, with Lawrence Stone, with anyone who threatened his intellectual territory. These were not merely personal eccentricities. They were the internal politics of a caste whose authority depended on maintaining hierarchical control over the production of historical knowledge.

Trevor‑Roper’s battles were, in effect, defensive actions against the encroachment of new methods, new disciplines, and new social forces. His hostility to social history, his contempt for sociology, and his suspicion of Marxist analysis were expressions of a deeper fear: that the bourgeois narrative of British history was losing its grip.His feuds were the last gasps of a declining intellectual aristocracy.

The Hitler Diaries Debacle: A Crisis of Bourgeois Authority

The 1983 Hitler Diaries scandal, in which Trevor‑Roper authenticated forged documents, is often seen as a personal humiliation. Yet it also exposed a wider crisis. His error was more than a lapse in expertise: it revealed the fading authority once automatically granted to Oxbridge dons, the susceptibility of elite intellectuals to media spectacle and commercial pressure, and the old establishment’s inability to adapt to a market‑driven cultural environment. The scandal became symbolic: the bourgeois historian, once treated as an arbiter of national truth, was shown to be fallible, compromised, and out of step with Thatcherism’s emerging order.

Thatcherism and the End of Trevor‑Roper’s World

Trevor‑Roper’s career spanned the “twilight” of the dons that Kidd describes. He lived to see the world that had sustained him dismantled by Thatcher’s reforms, as market logic displaced elite cultural authority, managerial bureaucracy replaced the Oxbridge intellectual, and the social foundations that had allowed dons to act as an unelected arm of the state were destroyed. His marginalisation in the 1980s was therefore not merely personal misfortune, but the political liquidation of the caste he represented.

From a Marxist perspective, Trevor‑Roper’s importance lies less in his scholarship, however stylish, than in his social function. He defended bourgeois historical interpretation, managed elite ideology, and ultimately became a casualty of the ruling class’s shift from paternalistic conservatism to neoliberal aggression. His career traces the arc of the British bourgeois intelligentsia: wartime integration into the state, authority sustained by cultural deference and institutional prestige, crisis under the pressures of mass politics and intellectual diversification, and collapse under Thatcherism’s assault on elite autonomy. Trevor‑Roper was therefore more than a don: he embodied a social order no longer able to reproduce its own ideological guardians.

Conclusion

The rise of artificial intelligence, the commodification of research, and the corporate transformation of universities mark a new phase in the crisis of bourgeois intellectual production. Kidd’s dons belonged to the last generation whose authority was socially assumed rather than bureaucratically measured. Their disappearance was not an isolated event, but part of the bourgeoisie’s wider failure to sustain a coherent ideological worldview.

Twilight of the Dons is not simply a history of Oxbridge. It is a chronicle of the collapse of a ruling‑class intellectual apparatus. Kidd’s affection for his subjects cannot obscure the truth: the dons were the final representatives of a decaying social order, undone not by revolution but by the internal contradictions of capitalism itself.

An Opportunity Squandered: Why Your Party Failed

~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

History seldom provides the left with clear moments. Usually, it appears as a haze filled with contradictions, crises, and uncertain possibilities. However, occasionally, these contradictions become clearer, the fog clears, and a political opportunity emerges—short-lived, obvious, and highly promising. The launch of Your Party was one such occasion.

It appeared after the Corbyn movement was dismantled, during a period when millions of workers, young people, and politically aware individuals were looking for a way to oppose the worsening brutality of British capitalism. The Starmer leadership had turned Labour into a party aligned with the state, security forces, and corporate interests. As a result, the working class found itself without a political home.

Your Party emerged into this vacuum, earning an enthusiastic response: within days, hundreds of thousands expressed interest. This strong reaction was not media exaggeration but a real sign of political radicalisation, indicating that the working class was ready to move away from Labourism and explore new avenues. However, Your Party’s leadership was unprepared for the moment; in fact, they feared it. They were afraid of the working class, of mass participation, and of the consequences of their rhetoric. As a result, they missed the opportunity.

The Labourist Reflex: Bureaucracy as Instinct

Your Party’s tragedy lies in being undermined not by outside foes, but by internally reproduced Labourist habits. The leadership group—self-selected, unaccountable, and cautious—acted from the beginning more like minor officials of a parliamentary system than rebels striving to create a new movement. Their natural inclinations were bureaucratic rather than revolutionary.

They built a party structure aimed at shielding the leadership from the members rather than empowering them. Decisions were taken in private WhatsApp groups, and policies were developed through secret discussions with advisers and consultants. The membership was viewed not as the party’s ultimate authority but as a possible challenge to the leadership’s dominance.

This bureaucratic instinct resulted in several harmful actions: decision-making that was opaque and secretive, factional tactics such as leaking information to adversarial media, pre-emptive expulsions of socialists before democratic structures were in place, legal threats targeting internal critics as a distorted form of “new politics,” and a refusal to develop democratic processes, which left members feeling powerless and confused.

These actions were deliberate, revealing a leadership with a limited political outlook centred on Westminster. They feared popular involvement because they feared the working class. Your Party was effectively doomed at birth because its leaders feared the very force that could have invigorated it.

The Sabotage of the Rank and File

The strongest criticism of Your Party’s leadership is that they never focused on building a party. Instead, they aimed to create a brand. Local branches emerged spontaneously across the country. Volunteers arranged meetings, designed leaflets, and tried to establish local structures on their own—without guidance, resources, or support from the leadership. Rather than assistance, they faced silence, obstruction, and disdain.

The leadership declined to supply funds, materials, organisational guidance, political education, or democratic mechanisms. Branches disintegrated, activists lost interest, and initial enthusiasm vanished. What once could have mobilised tens of thousands turned into a hollow entity, unable to contest elections or influence political discourse. This was not mere incompetence but deliberate political sabotage.

The leadership was concerned that a strong grassroots organisation could threaten their authority. They worried that an informed membership might seek clarity, accountability, and a departure from Labourism. They feared the party could evolve into something beyond their control. Consequently, they deprived it of resources.

The Ideological Vacuum: A Party Without a Programme

Your Party never clearly defined its main purpose: What is the party meant to achieve? Two opposing visions coexist uneasily. One, the Grassroots Socialist Current—anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, rooted in working-class struggles—sought to build a large movement capable of challenging the state and breaking definitively from Labourism. It saw capitalism’s crises as requiring a revolutionary response. The other, the Parliamentary Moralist faction—centred around the Peace and Justice group—favoured a modest, respectable NGO-style organisation, more of a pressure group than a political party, emphasising morality over strategy. They believed politics was mainly about tone, civility, and moral influence, not class struggle. The leadership’s inability to choose between these visions left the organisation paralysed. Instead of defining a clear program, Your Party drifted into empty slogans, identity-politics moralism, and electoral fantasies. A party without a clear program is not truly a party; it is merely a logo.

The Collapse: A Predictable Catastrophe

The results were immediate and catastrophic: polling showed 0% support. Membership remained stagnant at a small fraction of the original sign-ups. The party’s public credibility was shattered. Internal conflicts became its only visible activity. Leaders attributed this to “media hostility” and “growing pains,” but in truth, they engineered the movement’s suppression, fearing its potential for genuine change. The party’s collapse stemmed from leaders’ inability to envision politics beyond limited parliamentary reform.

Your Party’s failure is part of a long, tragic pattern: after 1932, the ILP; post-1956, the CPGB; the Bennite movement; Respect; Left Unity; Momentum; and now Your Party. Every effort to establish a left alternative within the limits of parliamentary reformism collapses due to internal contradictions. The Labour left does not serve as a vessel for socialist politics; it acts as a graveyard for such aspirations. The clear lesson is that the working class cannot be truly emancipated through organisations that fear its power.

The Verdict: A Failure of Nerve, Vision, and Class Politics

Your Party’s failure stemmed from its leadership’s refusal to depart from Labourism. They perpetuated the bureaucratic culture, factionalism, timidity, and disdain for the rank and file that have long characterised the Labour left. The opportunity was genuine, and the moment was historic, but the failure was self-inflicted. Your Party could have been a powerful tool for the working class; instead, it became a symbol of political cowardice. Its decline is not only organisational but also ideological, showing that the Labour left cannot and will not forge a socialist alternative. The challenge remains: to build a party rooted in the working class, unwavering in its principles, ready to confront the capitalist state fearlessly. Your Party was not that; the next must be.

Minority Rule, the American Founding, and the Marxist Theory of the State

~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

Introduction

Recent studies on the decline of American democracy focus on institutional failures, partisan division, and the solidification of minority rule. Ari Berman’s book, *Minority Rule*, fits within this discourse, and the Guardian’s review highlights its key assumption: that the U.S. is an “undemocratic democracy,” a republic whose founding principles have been undermined over time. This article challenges that view as historically inaccurate. Using Marxist state theory and the history of the American Revolution, it argues that the U.S. constitutional system was intentionally designed to limit popular sovereignty and maintain the political power of property owners.

The US Constitution was never intended as a democratic blueprint, but rather as a counter-revolutionary tool to control and undo the democratic changes sparked by the 1776 revolution. This chapter explores how this assertion fits into the wider academic discussions.

The Social Dynamics of the American Revolution

The American Revolution was not solely an elite political rupture but a period of intense popular mobilisation. Alfred Young’s microhistorical study of George Hewes demonstrates the political agency of artisans and labourers in revolutionary Boston.¹ Gary Nash’s synthetic account likewise emphasises the “lower-sort republicanism” that animated popular committees, militia organisations, and town meetings.² Archival petitions from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania reveal widespread demands for price regulation, debt relief, and expanded suffrage during the 1770s and early 1780s.³

These developments generated what Nash describes as a “radical democratizing impulse,” which challenged the established elites and called for significant political reform.

The Revolution’s democratic energies generated significant elite anxiety. Gordon Wood’s The Creation of the American Republic remains the foundational account of this ideological shift. Wood demonstrates that leading figures — Madison, Hamilton, Morris — increasingly viewed popular politics as destabilising.⁴ Their correspondence reveals deep concern over “the turbulence and follies of democracy.”⁵

Woody Holton’s Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution extends this analysis by emphasising the economic dimension: debtor-relief legislation, paper money issuance, and tax resistance threatened the interests of bondholders and merchants.⁶ Holton’s use of state legislative records shows that the Constitutional Convention was convened in response to these pressures, not merely to address interstate commerce or diplomatic weakness.

Anti-Federalist writings provide crucial evidence for understanding how contemporaries perceived the Constitution. Melancton Smith’s speeches at the New York ratifying convention warned that the proposed system represented a “transfer of power from the many to the few.”⁷ Archival notes from the debates show that Smith and others objected specifically to the Senate’s malapportionment, the indirect election of the president, and the lifetime tenure of federal judges.⁸

These critiques align with Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, which argued that the Constitution reflected the interests of property owners seeking to stabilise social relations after a decade of popular unrest.⁹ Although Beard’s thesis has been debated extensively, recent scholarship — notably Michael Klarman’s The Framers’ Coup — has revived aspects of his argument by demonstrating the extent to which the Convention operated outside popular control.¹⁰

The institutional architecture of the Constitution — the Senate, the Electoral College, the separation of powers, and the independent judiciary — must be understood as mechanisms designed to restrain democratic participation. Archival records from the Convention show explicit discussions of the need to “check the impetuous vortex” of popular politics.¹¹ The Senate was conceived as a body representing “the wealth of the nation.” At the same time, the judiciary was insulated from electoral accountability to ensure “firmness” in protecting property rights.¹²These features were not accidental. They were deliberate responses to the democratic mobilisation of the preceding decade.

Marxist theory provides a conceptual framework for understanding why the Constitution took this form. Marx and Engels argued that the state is “a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie.”¹³ Lenin, in State and Revolution, emphasised that the bourgeois state is structurally incapable of serving as an instrument of genuine popular rule.¹⁴ Trotsky, in The Revolution Betrayed, stressed that the form and function of the state are determined by underlying class relations, not by constitutional ideals.¹⁵

From this perspective, the American state’s institutional architecture reflects the class interests of those who shaped it. The Senate’s malapportionment, the Electoral College’s indirect mechanism, and the judiciary’s insulation from democratic oversight are structural features designed to limit the political power of non‑propertied classes.

The Supreme Court’s historical trajectory illustrates this continuity. Early Court decisions — Calder v. Bull (1798), Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) — reveal a consistent pattern of protecting contract rights and property interests.¹⁶ While the Court has occasionally upheld measures favourable to labour or civil rights, such decisions have typically occurred under conditions of intense social pressure. When those pressures recede, the Court reverts to its structural role as a defender of property. The Federalist Society’s contemporary influence intensifies this tendency but does not fundamentally alter it.

Liberal Reformism and Its Limits

The Guardian review concludes with examples of successful ballot initiatives in Michigan and Wisconsin, suggesting that such reforms demonstrate the resilience of democratic participation. Yet these cases illustrate the limits of liberal reformism rather than its promise. Archival data from the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission show that while the initiative altered district boundaries, it did not change the underlying distribution of political power or the state’s socioeconomic structure.¹⁷ Similarly, Senate debates over filibuster reform reveal that institutional veto points persist because both major parties benefit from them under different circumstances.¹⁸

To conclude, the answer to the crisis of American democracy is… the building of an independent political movement of the working class.” Whether one accepts this political prescription or not, the underlying historical insight is clear: the institutions of American governance were constructed to limit popular sovereignty, and their contemporary functioning reflects that foundational purpose. Any analysis that treats these institutions as neutral mechanisms capable of straightforward democratisation fails to grasp the historical depth of the problem.

This article contends that current forms of minority rule in the U.S. are not distortions but rooted in its original democratic framework. The U.S. Constitution was deliberately structured to limit democratic participation and uphold property-based political dominance. When viewed through Marxist state theory and the history of the American Revolution, this shows a consistent thread in American political evolution. Recognizing this continuity is crucial for evaluating the scope of reforms and the potential for deeper political change.

Notes

  1. Alfred F. Young, The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution (Boston: Beacon Press, 1999).
  2. Gary B. Nash, The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America (New York: Viking, 2005).
  3. Massachusetts Archives, vol. 210; Pennsylvania State Papers, Revolutionary Series.
  4. Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969).
  5. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 24 October 1787, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 10.
  6. Woody Holton, Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution (New York: Hill and Wang, 2007).
  7. Melancton Smith, New York Ratification Debates, 20 June 1788.
  8. New York Public Library, Melancton Smith Papers.
  9. Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1913).
  10. Michael J. Klarman, The Framers’ Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016).
  11. James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, 14 June 1787.
  12. Ibid.
  13. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848).
  14. Vladimir I. Lenin, State and Revolution (1917).
  15. Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (1937).
  16. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798); Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810); Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819).
  17. Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission Records, 2021–22.
  18. Congressional Record, 117th Congress (2021–22).