Walter Benjamin said that fascism offers the proletariat a means to express itself (through anger, ultimately leading to war) and capitalizes from it, but it does so without actually challenging the means of production, keeping them in the hands of the elite. When minorities become a market, it does not mean that they gain political power. But there is still the basic prerequisite that they gain political rights and possibilities to spend their earnings as the minority that they identify as. Note, for this ambivalence, that neither the left, nor the right ‘accept’ Hollywood as their voice — for the rightist narrative, Hollywood consists of a bunch of liberals who push their inclusive agenda; while for the leftists, Hollywood belongs to a bunch of old white men who are only interested in profit. We can now see that both are, in a certain point, correct — because they’re both not that different.

While the ‘logic’ of capitalism, in view of the economic value of structured information that allows subjects to become clearly positioned within the economy — both as workers and as consumers — ,is interested in the visibility and diversification of target groups, it is also interested in global mobility and division of labor that allows the actual producers to remain invisible and powerless. This marks the difference between expression and actual ownership of the means of production that Walter Benjamin refers to. While minorities are allowed to express themselves, they are rarely allowed to do so on their own terms and with control over the means of expression. This also alludes to the different dynamics in the nurturing of tribal sentiments within target audiences and the pressure to strongly identify with them — in the 1960’s and 70’s, you were a mod or a rocker, a punk or a hippie, but 50 years later, you’re all in the limbo of Radio Nostalgia, a new market with new allegiances.

Such strategic differentiations are not always harmless, as we can see within the proletariat, where nationalist and racist discourses create tensions between the “outsourced proletariat,” the “immigrant proletariat,” and the “native proletariat” to make sure they are divided, channeling frustrations that arise due to capitalist exploitation — note, that in the current nationalist discourse, the first remains invisible and the second appears as a culprit, while only the latter is given a voice. Identification works both way: As marketability (economization) and as a means of suppression (depolitization). This means that the current multiplication of (e.g. sexual) self-identification is not necessarily subversive, as it can be used to stimulate the auto-poiesis of new potential markets.

On the other hand, ironically, the contemporary shift to the right does not contradict the logic of capitalism, but is rather a means to channel the frustration of the exploited to keep the ownership of the means of production stable. ‘Normality’ is a political tool to identify ‘legitimate’ ownership from mere marketability. It makes sure that the solidarity of the emerging subgroups remains economic and attached to brands instead of people. The steering of the frustration of the exploited toward minorities, which keeps them in their place politically, does not contradict the economic role that the minorities are to play as consumers. It nurtures tribal sentiments and makes sure that minorities keep perceiving themselves in the mode of being “minorities” — considering that the difference between ‘minoritary’ and ‘majoritary’ has nothing to do with numerical differences. It is symptomatic that nowadays in the US, the left and the right consider themselves as victims — which brings us back to the mentioned necessity of scapegoats.

The question of solidarity

The “Class Solidarity” that was once deemed possible, back in the 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th, connects to the image of a huge swarm of workers working in one huge factory, eating and sometimes living together as one family; and therefore of an organically moving body that becomes a massive and dangerous wave if it wants to and that can collectively own the factory it works in, appropriating it from the owner. We can barely imagine the fear that a word like Generalstreik could once elicit. Solidarity here is inherently connected to the democratic authority over one’s own production and a physical proximity of the suppressed.

Nowadays, a smartphone is not created in one factory: there’s rather a plethora of specialized factories that manufacture parts of the parts of smartphones which are assembled throughout the world. This means that no factory could suddenly appropriate its production, because its production is worthless without the global network that partake in the production of the smartphone that can only be sold according to copyrights. Imagine all smartphones of the world being produced in one huge factory — We could not imagine what power its workers would hold. And now, how little power do factories have nowadays? Imagine a factory rebelling and appropriating the parts of the parts that they create for a smartphone, or even calling for humane working conditions. Does the production of smartphones stop? No, another factory opens next door, because the owners have the know-how of building these parts of parts and they have the right to open another factory producing them. And what worth is such a part of a part anyway? The workers would be faced by a monopsony; having to negotiate with the very corporation they rose against in order to sell their useless part of a part. So we can see that not even the proletariat of smartphone producers could realistically create solidarity along the whole network. Its physical distance holds them apart and under the thumb.

This means that a return to classical class analysis has become much more problematic. Voices from the left that blame the post-modernists for overlooking the proletariat miss the point. You simply have no political power if you can easily be outsourced; the improved workers’ conditions and demands in China are leading to further outsourcing to Vietnam. There is nothing new in the far-right’s narrative of a solidarity with the proletariat; as we’ve already seen with Benjamin, giving the suppressed a voice is an appropriate means of the rightist agenda. Yet, the visibility of the proletariat in itself does not come along with its appropriation of political power — especially as long as the means of expression are not in its own hands. Understanding that they are part of the same suppressive dynamic as minorities is a strong potential source for a new form of solidarity — one which the rightist narrative is actively trying to avert. And once again, this narrative is an example for a regressive reaction to a contemporary problematic. The plea for nationalization and de-globalization is an attempt to forcefully undo a dynamic that is inherent to the capitalist development. While problems that arise out of global phenomena are probably indeed in need of local action, exploitation will simply not be undone out of sheer will.