the left is not the left

(this is something i wrote on the morning of 3/3 and read/discussed on my twitch stream that day.)

- the left is not the left... political compasses are ephemeral, and left/right denominations make sense in the context of quickly describing where one stands in a political setting, nothing more. you cannot 'be' the left, and the 'left' does not do anything. people do things

- the left did not 'used' to be the left, and there is nothing we can do to make the left the left. political projects are each unique and have a unique set of successes and failures. they can be inspired by each other and studious of theory, but they are not theory. they are groups of people coming together to do things. they have various contradictions and conflicts, and what they do consists of various processes

- what matters from here on out is what has always mattered. not what you think, not what you've read, not what you consider yourself, not the org you're a part of. what matters is the answer to one very simple question. what are you Doing.

- studying only matters insofar as it can help you understand what you are doing. it can help you understand histories of places you're in, it can help you understand how the financial system works and doesn't work, it can help you understand the people you interact with regularly. it can help you in so many ways. but it only matters if you are Doing something

- you have to think about what you do on a daily basis. are you feeding anyone? are you helping anyone's literacy? are you inspiring anyone? are you bringing people together? are you agitating anyone? are you obstructing anyone? what is it that you are doing?

- when we talk about the Left and talk about ideology and talk about people that annoy us online and offline, we can easily fool ourselves into thinking that this alone is the Doing. but talking without Doing, and without being conscious of what you're Doing, is just feeding spectacle.

- "In both form and content the spectacle serves as a total justification of the conditions and goals of the existing system. The spectacle is also the constant presence of this justification since it monopolizes the majority of the time spent outside the modern production process."

- if all you do is think about the machine and discuss how much you like or dislike it, you are simply reifying the machine. you are embodying something the machine has already accounted for in its goals.

- many mistake the spectacle for mere engagement with mass media. engagement with mass media is not necessarily spectacle, and in fact, filmmakers and artists and content creators that are able to get people in a room together to engage with a story, with a narrative, an idea, a theory etc. that they truly care about have engaged with the real world. and many who watch a movie, a good or a bad one, reflect on what they've watched, and apply it to how they treat other people, are also engaging with the 'real world'.

- your thoughts about hasan or destiny or the DSA or the Democrats or the Republicans do not matter outside of the spectacle. it is what you are Doing with those thoughts that matter. a hasan consumer who spends their time arguing about him on and offline and engaging in his chat is wrapped up in spectacle; a hasan consumer who watches one or two of his videos as a way to get educated on a subject that they'll talk about to their friends or their family or their students or staff is engaging in the 'real world'. it doesn't matter who is more 'left,' it matters who is more alive

- the only way you can break the spectacle is by first acknowledging it is a spectacle. the spectacle is real, it is 'a worldview that has actually been materialized, that has become an objective reality.' it is not 'fake,' it is a real place and most of us spend at least some time in it.

- in order to exit it so we can engage with the material world and the people in it, we first have to acknowledge we are in the spectacle, and then return to our consciousness. we can return to our consciousness by meditating. if you are not meditating you're more than likely just being dragged around by thought patterns, sense pleasures and distractions. you remain a hamster in the wheel, and that wheel is almost always the spectacle, the "social relation between people that is mediated by images," images that are in your head.

- other examples of 'left' spectacle:

1. ill will. you saying someone is a terrible person who deserves to die--that does nothing. if you believe that about someone and then take the time to affect them materially, then you are Doing something, regardless of whether or not that something is worth it--maybe it is! and maybe that person definitely is terrible and definitely deserves to die. so what? what does that do for me? what do we do now? most of the online left space is ill will towards bad actors. that is a hamster wheel, it's a cycle of spectacle. there can be value in learning about a person's role in oppression, and there can be value in meeting likeminded people, but that's not what feeds the algorithm. what feeds the algorithm, and thus the spectacle, is the neverending cycle of left-wing ill will content.

2. speech praise. it could be a really smart tweet or a really well worded speech. its value can be acknowledged without delving into lionization. but much of the online and offline left is looking at words of a 'based' person and then talking about how 'based' they are. yes, che Guevara had great quotes, but those quotes were ruminations and reflections and performances, all based on addressing certain audiences to get them to do things. the reason those quotes matter is because che Guevara was very much in the business of Doing Things. yes, a certain world leader might make a good speech about the West or even about Palestine, but are they actually materially supporting Palestinians? without acknowledging that speech is only speech and it can thus only do what speech does (which is valuable in its own right), you are merely engaging in spectacle.

3. fetishization vs. admiration. leftists struggle to truly admire movements and actions and people for what they are. they fetishize marx, and then they struggle to understand his actual words, because they are attached to what they think marx and Marxism is. they fetishize western philosophical articulations, or they fetishize European social safety nets, or they fetishize global south movements. i see people fall into a trap all the time of dismissing the 'leftists' in front of them because the real shit, the important shit, is happening in a poor country far far away from us. the leftists here are never good enough, they're always betraying the movement. there is always a more noble struggle and a more effective left somewhere else.

but if you were to go to the global south, to the Philippines or brazil or Bolivia or laos, and you were to talk to the leftists there, they would tell you how fed up they are with the leftists there, how much everyone is fighting each other instead of working together, how much bigotry pervades, how often systems of oppression seem to reassert themselves. they might even tell you about some other place far away from there, where there is a left and a struggle much more noble, getting much more done.

it's all a trap. the most important thing you can do is look at your present condition, your present surroundings, and your own skillset, and ask: "how can i contribute?" and you won't be able to do so with a clear head if you are so attached to the idea of being a 'leftist.'

4. organizing for organizing's sake. one of the most challenging quotes of TSOS is that "the spectacle cannot be abstractly contrasted to concrete social activity. Each side of such a duality is itself divided. The spectacle that falsifies reality is nevertheless a real product of that reality, while lived reality is materially invaded by the contemplation of the spectacle and ends up absorbing it and aligning itself with it. Objective reality is present on both sides."

this relates, in my mind, to the dismissal of mass media and art as 'distractions' and considering those things as 'spectacle' meaning abstract, unreal life. it also relates to the fetishization and sloganeering of ideas like 'touch grass' or 'organize.' for instance, the dismissal of people as 'chronically online' versus those 'touching grass.' many people who are online are helping people become more conscious or aiding them materially. many people who are 'touching grass' are doing so as spectacle--'look at me, i'm outside!'--but what are they Doing outside? are they connecting with nature, are they connecting with people, or are they just there to be there? this also applies to the distinction of 'online left' vs. 'offline left.'

it also applies to the classic clarion calls of leftposts. stop me if you've heard this one: "get offline and get organized!" "are you organized?" "if you're not organizing, it doesn't matter." oftentimes, when people talk about "organizing," they are doing so as spectacle. many people get 'organized' in 'real life,' and that consists of them joining an org, taking up a leadership position and then bickering with other people in the org. it consists of them handing out some food to poor people for a few minutes and then going home, feeling self-satisfied without having made deep relationships. this is not to shit on people, or to shit on the value of even 5 minutes of effort. it is to show how much the 'real world' is also 'emerging within the spectacle.'

- to my mind, 'the spectacle' is the lack of higher consciousness, the hyperfocus on thoughts and ideas and feelings, the lack of self-awareness of one's own material capacities and limitations. it shows up in all of our lives and affects all of us; none of us are sacred, none of us are always 'real.' that is why we have to engage with the spectacle--it is just as real as any of us, and it can teach us about where consciousness and action are not meeting each other. it is the very idea of 'social forces.' maybe this isn't exactly what debord thought, but it doesn't need to be.

- when i say 'the left is not the left,' i am calling on people to detach, to get in touch with their own bodies and minds, and to stop running in the hamster wheel of identifying with things. the 'left' is not an identity, it's a term describing a relative position where there is already an argument. the 'left' is not a group of people, it's not a good idea or a bad idea, it's not a place to be. the 'left' is a chess move. you can't do a chess move when there is not a game of chess. when we live in this idea that we are 'the left' and we have so many ideas about 'the left' to debate about and who is the 'real left' and who is 'a CIA psy-op' and how 'the Left can win' and how 'the Left abandons men' and how 'the Left always eats its own,' we are constantly playing chess moves in our head where there is no game in front of us.

- the only way we can change the world is through grounded detachment. it's through accepting that everything and everyone can and will be fake at some point. it's through surrendering to who you are and where you are and how things are right now, so that you can ask, 'ok, what will i do, then?' as long as we are attached to 'leftism' we cannot actually consistently act according to the values that left-wing politics are supposed to consist of. when we detach from 'leftism,' then we can use it for good.

- when we attach to 'leftism,' we put ourselves in a prison. are we 'good leftists' or 'bad leftists?' who deserves to die and who deserves to have everything? we live in an abstract idea that leads us over and over again to the spectacle. the point is to Be yourself exactly as you are, and find your happiness in that. only then can you consistently Do things, because you'll know exactly what you're Doing, exactly how it can go right or wrong, and decide what it is that is worth doing.

- i am aware that this talk itself is or will be wrapped up in spectacle. my words can inevitably be used in downplaying someone's trauma or someone's struggle, in focusing again in people contrasting themselves ('good, based actors that live in the real world') vs. you ('bad, dumb actors, wrapped up in spectacle'). all i can do is talk and, to the best of my ability, offer a vehicle for people to return to their own consciousness. because talking is just talking. talking is like a rare earth mineral. it's valuable, but it's hard to know what good or evil will be done with it. jesus talked some of the best talk one can talk, and look at what societies did with that. i'm hardly jesus. and yet talking is my work right now, it's what i do, and so i will keep doing it, and maybe as i get better at it, as i learn more and become more conscious, i can hope a lot of good can come of my role here on this planet. but i'm not the planet, i'm not a pure force of good, and i'm not the left.