tl;tr: Naomi Klein has written a book that is in equal parts exiting and confusing. The book offers an important look at the populist right and the conspiratorial, diagonalist fronts that were opened up during the pandemic, or actually accelerated by the pandemic. But towards its conclusion Doppelgänger devolves into a frustrating read. She seems to almost understand the radical change that needs to happen now, but then shies away and settles back into “democratic socialist” standard fare.
[May contain spoilers]
After reading Doppelgänger, Naomi Klein’s latest book, i am puzzled, how someone can be on one hand so very concise and sharp in their analysis, while at the same time so completely off in the solutions they propose.
Klein almost gets it, even mentions the need for communal care structures, for mutual aid, for collective grieving processes, but then shifts back to statist and centralized solutions, advocating "better" states (as if that was possible) with "better" people at the top (come on … or, does she maybe secretly fancy herself in one of these position on top, next to Bernie?).
This is why we can’t have nice things.
This is why we are doomed.
I very much applaud the fact that Klein, the anti-Wolf (or is she the Fake Wolf?), has written a more personal book. To this i say: finally. The thing is that Doppelgänger managed to reveal parts of her personality, that don’t hold much appeal to me. Don’t get me wrong, i do find it commendable that she is honest about some of her neurosis, makes funny self-depreciating jokes, that’s all good. But on the whole she does come off as a rather narcissistic. It is till much appreciated honesty. But it did make me cautious.
So even though i enjoyed reading the book, learned a lot from it, the way it ends made it clearer than ever, that i do not play on the same team as Klein. I can’t trust her.
Does this sound too drastic? Let me explain. Or try to.
The irony is not lost on me. In essence Klein has written a passionate appeal directed at the people on the progressive or radical left to overcome their differences, urging “us” to start pulling in the same direction.
But does such an “us” exist? And how could it?
How could i, and i suppose this counts for many anarchists, pull into the same direction with people, like Klein, who still believe that a centralized state can be considered a valid solution? Even if, as she hastens to add, the borders of said state would be less rigid.
“In the face of these very tangible threats, fiercely defending the borders of our identities, and the borders of our broader ethnic/racial/gender identity groups, is serving us all poorly. Indeed, if history is any guide, it will be our undoing. Because every story of triumph for the fascist right is also a story of fragmentation, sectarianism, and stubborn refusal to make strategic alliances on the anti-fascist left.”
Boah, hold your horses there. If the goal is for the progressive left to come together, a much more fundamental question needs to be resolved first. State or no state? And to be honest, i don’t believe this question can be resolved.
No, it is not identity politics dividing us. But this question very much is.
Sadly it is not enough for all of us on the radical left, or maybe the anti-capitalist, anti-fascist left, to be nicer to each other. Sure, i agree, let us be nice to each other. But so what. The ways we envision the world, the structures we want to build, the way we plan to re-organize society after capitalism, these are the questions that make all the difference. And this is why the various groups on the progressive left remain incompatible.
We anarchists do not believe in the state. States and nations are, above all, huge, clunky, top-down structures. And as such, even if the people in power have the best intentions (and they usually don’t), they will always lead to a concentration of power at the top of the hierarchy, which in turn leads to corruption, abuses of power and the exclusion and prosecution of large swathes of the population.
We have seen this time and time again. That is what history shows us, not that identity politics “will be our undoing”.
Meanwhile democratic socialists, like Klein, still believe that a “better” state will fix everything. These guys still wax nostalgic when talking about Allende’s Chile, Red Vienna, what have you… or actually the myths surrounding such historical movements.
What this shows to us, to the anti-statist left, is that these people do not understand what true democracy looks like.
What we need is to start thinking about de-centralized, grassroots, democratic structures, truly egalitarian, connected in horizontal networks and federations. Think Paris commune, Rojava, Chiapas, ZAD.
The centralized state is one of the fundamental problems that plagues us. It will always, from the top downwards, and by its very nature, exclude groups on the left, or on the right, and sometimes both left and right.
If at the core of our analysis of what is wrong with the world sits the centralized state, alongside—and here we all agree—capitalism, patriarchy and white supremacy, how could we trust someone, like Klein, who does not see the state as such a fundamental problem, who believes states just need to somehow get “better”—whatever that means.
If you look at it from an anti-statist viewpoint, to believe in a “better” state is reformist. Not revolutionary.
States do not suddenly get “better” because some Bernie sits on top. Or Corbyn. Or Allende. Or whoever really. (See: Tsipras). In fact, we do not want anyone to sit on top. A democracy based on majority rule via elections or votes, does not magically start to include more people, because the Bernie is such a cool dude.
I am speculating here, but guessing from the barely hidden narcissism shimmering through her writing, Klein seems to imagine herself primed for a central role in the imagined project of building her fictional “better” state. Primed for a vanguard position at the top, next to Bernie or whoever. What this would mean for the rest of us, is that we need to trust her and her people (and their good intentions).
But how could we? History has shown us we can’t do that.
We don’t need more self-fulfilling prophecies in the form of top-down constructs like states or huge corporations or NGOs.
What we need is grassroots, true democracy based on consensus decision making processes, where the people actually are in power. Not just by proxy.
What we need are smaller, democratic units, municipalities, neighbourhoods, communities, interconnected in clever ways with other such units. Not huge, hierarchical, centralized constructs based on the latest fantasy of what would somehow—magically—make them more just, equitable, fair. Well, they might be “better” for some, but never for everyone.
What we need is to abolish not only the police and the prisons, but the entire state, and even the more basic constructs that enable the state, families, churches and schools. And in order to abolish anything, what needs to happen, as always, is to build a world where these structures are no longer needed.
In other words, we need a true utopia. We need more Ursula K Le Guin, Marge Piercy, less China Mieville or Philip fucking Roth.
“[…] none of these changes will happen fast enough until more of us figure out how to soften the borders around our individual selves and around our various identity groups to allow for a coming together in common cause.”
Where Klein criticizes identity politics, and implies that they are the root cause for all the tensions among the progressive left, she suspiciously starts to sound like her doppelgänger Wolf.
Identity politics is never ever the problem per se, unless, of course, it turns essentialist, bases itself on exclusive (and excluding) principles like race, gender, nationality, religion or other such abhorrent ideas. But that type of identity politics, with the rare exception, is usually seen on the right.
Klein advances a straw man argument, because she misrepresents leftist identity politics. As long as intersectionality is understood as one of the core principles, identity politics can even be a part of the solution. By blaming identity politics in the way she does, Klein, maybe unwittingly, is aligning herself with right-wing discourse, and hovers just a baby step away from feeding into the right-wing trope that tries to blame everything on identity politics, woke, politically correctness, cancel culture, blah blah blah. While right wingers indulge in the worst kind of identity politics themselves.
The actual problem will always be the discrimination people experience BECAUSE of their marginalized identities, never the identity politics that RESULT from the discrimination, in an attempt of self-preservation and lived solidarity.
Meanwhile the actual problem for the division among the progressive left, as stated above, remains the question of the state, hierarchies, decision making processes.
For the rest of us down here, who are not a part of the vanguard, identity politics will serve us just fine as a recruitment tool when we build our communities. It will help us do the ground work, as the need arises to build groups, tribes, communes, in order to help us survive and to feel safe, when we maybe need to protect ourselves from their new and so much “better” (pinkie-promise) state.
But let me back up a bit here. Sure, as a thought experiment, i’ll bite. Let me think it through, how can i contribute to re-unite the progressive left?
Don’t laugh. Trying hard to be constructive here.
So let's imagine we do pull ourselves together to fight capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy—and in many ways we already do all that, since we agree on how all these things present huge and central problems. However, that is not where the inner-leftist problems start. They start where we disagree on how we should get organized (horizontal or hierarchical), how decisions should be taken (consensus or majority rule), in our diverging visions of what a world we want to fight for.
In other words, the inner-left problems start around very concrete stuff, that can influence many layers of our activities and interactions. This also explains the fundamental tensions we often experience. Tensions that can not simply be magic-wanded away, because the “good” Naomi thinks we should all agree with her version.
On an even more practical level, how could i, a disabled, chronically ill, neurodivergent person, work with the ableist left, that keeps prioritizing physical meetings, in meat space, without the protective measures, that would allow me to even participate. They exclude me, so this is not even a theoretical possibility.
Sorry. But nope.
Any way i turn it, any way i look at it, i see no possibility to work with the statist left. The result always was and always will be authoritarian, hierarchical and often in-transparent power structures. And as anti-authoritarianism plays such a crucial role in my basic analysis, it becomes an impossibility to collaborate with the tankies (almost to the same extent as i couldn’t ever collaborate with people on the right).
This question really is that central. There is no need to blame identity politics for any of it.
Of course i am looking for a tribe of like-minded and like-abled people. And yes, that is identity politics. We will be careful not to forget how intersectionality links us to countless other groups. Within my tribe we will disagree on many things, but we will not have to keep having the same basic discussions as to whether we believe in a state or if we take decisions by majority rule or even if we owe it to our comrades to protect them from possible harm (no, no and yes). That is where we already have consensus and therefore start fully operational.
So I wanna thank Naomi Klein for yet again putting her finger onto very pressing issues. Issues that we do need to address. The mirror world, that has appropriated our methods against us, pulled former allies into it, with the goal of spreading conspiracy, hatred, division and ultimately fascism. And the role social media and the outrage economy plays in all this, while stealing and monetizing our data. The Shadow world, with all its buried skeletons because of colonialism, settler mentality and patriarchal, religious bullshit. The grieve work we need to do.
I agree with Klein, the entire white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal and ableist clusterfuck, that was unleashed (actually more like uncovered) during the pandemic, needs to be completely dissected, analyzed, understood, named, before it can get resolved and rejected. For all this Klein has written a great book.
But the solutions she offers, or in some cases just hints at, they will not be possible for all of us on the radical left. And please back off from the straw man version identity politics.
Sorry. If the goal was to unite the radical left, back to the drawing board.
Thank you for this wrap-up. Seems like an interesting enough, albeit frustrating, read.