A neo-anarchist vampire bites back: Mark Fisher and neoconservative leftism

This is a response to the piece Exiting the Vampire Castleby Mark Fisher.

I don’t know anything about Mark Fisher. He wrote a book, called Capitalist Realism that a lot of people seem to like, but I have no idea what’s in it or if I should care. But I do know Mark is afraid of me. He is afraid of me, because I am an anarchist, because I engage with “identity politics”, because I think the Labour Party is a load of bourgeois shit, because I believe that influential figures should be held to account for oppressive speech-acts, and because I (occasionally) go to university. Moreover, he is afraid of me because I am destroying something precious to him, something to which he has attributed meaning and invested desire – the Left; a figure, an image and a real assemblage, which produces intense affects in those who believe in its necessity and potential, and whose evident failure to intervene decisively at this moment of capitalist crisis has induced flows of despondancy across the entire social body.

How does one deal with such intense negative affect, with frustrated desire, with a pronounced, emasculating political impotence, which threaten to overwhelm the subject? What happens to the revolutionary breaks and flows of the communist machine when there seems to be precisely no way to productively intervene in the political situation? One possible line of flight is to retreat into nostalgia, pining for a workers movement of yesteryear, which was powerful and decisive and unified, while conveniently forgetting that it was this same workers movement whose failure allowed neoliberalism to claw its way into every last nook and cranny of social existence. Another is to project one’s negativity onto a scapegoat, a monstrous vampiric Other, which can be blamed for sucking the vitality and hope out of the Left.

It is, I think, no coincidence that Mark Fisher chose this historic moment of deficit (the opposite of a “moment of excess”) to dust off an old and conservative discourse, give it a new psychoanalytical gloss, and to use it to rhetorically storm the “Vampire’s Castle” he’s built in his head. Its resonances, both positive and negative, across the left seem to me to be symptomatic of the current (de)composition of the Left as a social force, where old antagonisms along identarian lines have been invested with a new urgency by the collapse of organised resistance to the present capitalist assault. It is the confluence, I think, of a number of affects specific to this period of crisis, some, perhaps, understandable and forgivable, others thoroughly unpleasant and reactionary, which produce the libidinal underpinnings of this discourse, which, following Judith Butler, I shall call “neoconservative Marxism”, namely:

  1. feelings of uncertainty, hopelessness, and directionlessness, that result from witnessing one’s organising efforts come to nothing

  2. a sense of an urgent need for unity to compensate for the evident weakness of the Left as it stands

  3. a sense of the urgency of class struggle at this particular moment, combined with a sense of competition with non-class struggles for increasingly scarce resources

  4. a felt need for robust, “no bullshit” discourse, which also has the side effect of producing a masculine affect

  5. a need to participate in the psychodrama of conflict at a time when there seems to be no way to hit your enemies where it hurts

  6. concomitant feelings of discomfort around the difficult and patient work of rebuilding, rethinking and re-orienting left resistance, and

  7. a jealousy towards the relative vitality and vibrancy displayed by intersectional/feminist discourses

One might recognise oneself in this characterisation, or one might strongly resist such psychological speculation. My purpose here was to demonstrate that the neoconservatism evinced by Fisher could also be analysed as a “libidinal-discursive formation”. But it also, I think, demonstrates why Fisher’s decision to position himself as analyst and to interpellate numerous comrades, as analysand, is both rather presumptuous, and a piss poor form of argumentation. It allows the author to negate the subjectivity of his opponent, and whatever arguments they might marshall in support of their position, and instead indulge in a patronising performance of “I understand why you think the way you do” faux-insight.

Perhaps it would be better to interrogate the substance of the argument.

The Worker and the Vampire as Gothic horror

Exiting the Vampire Castle is ostensibly an attack on the essentialising tendencies of something called “identity politics”, a style of argument that has been rehearsed often enough to constitute a genre in and of itself. This time, however, the usual genre tropes are given a distinct Gothic twist. The hero, as usual, is the ordinary British (i.e. white) working class man, this time played, somewhat incongrously by Russell Brand. The worker, trapped in a castle made out of political correctness gone mad, is stalked and preyed upon by vampires: bourgeois liberal academics posing as leftists, who hide in the shadows waiting for the worker to say something mildly sexist so they can sink their fangs of guilt and shame into the worker’s lovely neck. Once bitten, the worker is subjected to a horrific fate: he is essentialised as a sexist. The vampires may claim that they are interested in things like liberation, justice, solidarity and collectivity, but their bloodlust, it is revealed to our horror, is motivated by something much darker: petty bourgeois class interest. It is only by re-asserting the primacy of class that the vampires can be slayed and the worker can finally escape the castle and carry out his historic mission of abolishing capitalist society.

As is often the case, poorly-conceived horror morphs into camp comedy. Russell Brand, with his millions of pounds and his habit of subjecting women to public and sexualised humiliation, is hardly convincing as the hapless victim. Indeed, what else is there to do but laugh at a class analysis in which a working class person can be a multimillionaire comedian and film star and retain their working class identity, but a worker who becomes an academic and pursues an interest in Cultural Studies is inevitably possessed by a petty bourgeois essence which structures their discourse according to a subconscious desire to own a prosperous corner shop. One might also wonder in passing whether a worker might be a woman, or queer, or not white, which might recast our tragic male hero in a more ethically ambiguous light, spoiling the dramatic effect.

Neoconservative Marxism as identity politics

There are rather obvious contradictions at the heart of Fisher’s argument: How can one rail against essentialism, while essentialising (and therefore dismissing) a whole family of left discourses as petty bourgeois, and academic? How can one oppose identity politics by valourising a working class identity that is apparently independent of one’s material situation? How can one oppose the supposed suppression of class struggle on the left, while putting forward a view of class as essentially a cultural attitude abstracted from actual material struggle?

These contradictions resolve themselves if one considers Fisher’s intervention not as an opposition to identity politics per se, but as a territorial dispute over which identity politics should have primary status on the Left. For Neoconservative Marxists, the real problem with ‘intersectionality’ and such ‘identity-politics’ discourses is that they are seen as introducing division into the left, fracturing the a priori unity of the working class. Political struggle is seen as a zero-sum game: there can only be one historical Subject, and it must be the worker. Since the worker is now positioned as the sole political subject, aspects of feminism, anti-racism, and queer struggles which cannot be assimilated into an analysis of economic struggles must be something else: ethics, not politics. Therefore, those women, people of colour and queers who refuse to play their allotted role in the class struggle are infecting the workers movement with a debilitating moralism, rather than participating in a (sometimes tense and difficult) negotiation towards a recomposition of “the real movement that abolishes the present state of things”.

Perhaps the most useful lesson to take from Fisher’s piece is that, while it’s relatively easy to produce a critique of identity politics, it is far harder to transcend in practice. It might be accurate to say that intersectional discourses work with reified identity categories (although that too would be an oversimplification), but to understand that reification as merely an illusory effect of intersectionality or identity politics, rather than a material reality, is idealist in the extreme. One does not transcend identity categories by performative critique. Unity pursued through the repression of difference, is only ever purchased through the exclusion, marginalisation and domestication of gendered and racialised minorities within the left. Truly democratic unity, which in any case is never perfect and is always merely a productive conjuncture of difference, is always the effect of a successful prior coming-together on the basis of respect and mutual recognition. The revolutionary force that finally sweeps away this oppressive system is only going to be materialised in a tense coalition of heterogenous political subjectivities: workers, environmentalists, feminists, queers, people of colour, punks, anarchists, socialists, communists, liberals (even). The most prudent form of intervention on this question, then, is not to insist on collective identities that flatten out differences, but to work to build coalitions that honour and respect difference, which become unified through a collective project or vision for social transformation. Interventions like Fisher’s only serve to accentuate divisions. It doesn’t actually advance any kind of project of recomposition.

  1. mikey said:

    This is the best response i’ve read. Particularly revealing Fisher’s *actual* position which is, as you point out, a territorial one over ‘which’ identity, not over class versus identity.

    But i must disagree with this bit in a comradely manner – “The revolutionary force that finally sweeps away this oppressive system is only going to be materialised in a tense coalition of heterogenous political subjectivities: workers, environmentalists, feminists, queers, people of colour, punks, anarchists, socialists, communists, liberals (even).”
    I think that is what struggle looks like… for now. Or this is what a successful, radical but essentially reformist politics would look like. That is what is essential when there *is no* revolutionary force. But, you don;t ‘build’ a revolutionary force like this, you build good networks that can engage in struggle on a basic level like this that doesn;t exclude people as you say through some false unity.

    But a revolutionary force will and must ‘dis-identify’ these social roles in the process of becoming revolutionary, I think its obvious that it would be a movement that is unmanageable because it refuses to represent itself. Abstract i know but i hope you get my point.

    • Yeah I get your point. And I also agree that the process of revolution will begin to erode constituted forms of identity. But my belief is that this process will tend to multiply rather than reduce difference. It’s not the case that in becoming-revolutionary we will all dissolve ourselves into a single collective subject; on the contrary, becoming-revolutionary means destroying the various productive-repressive apparatuses of social control that prevent us from ranging freely over the full space of subjective possibility.

  2. I have been told, in straight up playing English, by annoying Marxist college kids, that low income urban white people “don’t matter” because we are only 2% of the population.

    In a country of 300 million people, 2% is 6 million. Yes we matter. I never have these problems with black people, me living in a black neighborhood, only with wealthy white liberals do I get in these arguments. And it always ends in me being preached to about race by a white person. So I’ve never claimed that white privilege doesn’t exist. I’ve also never claimed that racism doesn’t exist. I’ve also never been called racist BY a black person. Put all those things together and tell me what you get from that.

    And Russell Brand was kind of a goofy example to use. You could have picked an actual low income white person. And stop mixing “low income” with this rural, working-class image. That’s the middle-class you’re thinking of. Stop it. Or else just stop using the term “low income” altogether. By the way doesn’t it just kill you people that the average tea partier makes $68,000 a year while you try to shuck off blame for racism onto “poor people”? Again most of you people can’t even tell the difference between middle-class and low income (they are two entirely different and separate things). So what makes all of you who have taken sociology classes, think you have the right to lecture me, a low income person who has struggled firsthand?

    No I haven’t struggled due to my race, but due to my class. “Class and race are intertwined” should not be code word for “class struggle outside of race doesn’t exist at all”, which it usually is. I see it’s easy for you people to see yourselves as a privileged Racial majority, of course it’s not so easy to recognize that you are also members of a privileged class minority (most white social justice majors coming from upper middle-class homes). You people start sweating bullets when I bring up that we have to talk about class independent of race SOME time. Because you don’t want to be in the minority. You upper middle-class folks want to huddle behind the rest of the “white” Population to say, “come on now folks, we are all equally privileged!”

    No. No we are not, and once again I must point out that not a single black person has ever said anything like that to me. But black people are rarely the ones leading the conversation, since most of them have something called “a job”. Once again: do I have white privilege? Yes.

    Is this an excuse for upper middle-class people to deny the privileges they have in life over me, due to me being born into a low income household? NO. Sorry rich folks, you’re not going to pull that one on me.

    “Black people are always experts on race. Except when they’re not.”- Ancient Berkeley proverb.

    Yes this is petty classism. I should also point out that intersectionality is a GOOD thing. Anti-racists and feminists who understand intersectionality are not the problem. Anti-racists and feminists who do NOT understand intersectionality, are the problem. Antiracism and feminism are definitely “good”, not that my opinion should matter on that one being a white male. When it comes to issues of economic oppression and equality, my opinions matter as a low income person raised in a low income (not middle-class) household.

    • Ollie S said:

      The author mentions Russell Brand due to what Mark Fisher said about him, in the piece which this author is criticising.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: