Fang Min and Zhu Yun: Reflections on the Historical Limitations of Contemporary Western Identity Politics

The world today is undergoing great changes unseen in a century, with both China and Western societies experiencing rapid and profound shifts. Since the Reform and Opening-up, the Chinese people, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, have united to forge a path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Currently, in stark contrast to China's rise, Western developed nations are facing problems in their economies, politics, and social livelihoods. Not only have they struggled to emerge from the 2008 financial crisis, but they also failed to respond effectively to sudden public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic. What exactly has gone wrong with Western developed capitalist countries? While there are many reasons, prominent Western thinkers such as Mark Lilla and Francis Fukuyama have coincided in pointing toward "identity politics." Since the 1960s, with the arrival of post-industrial society, the socio-economic structures of Western societies have undergone major changes, and traditional class politics has gradually declined. Within this historical context, identity politics took the historical stage in Western developed nations primarily in the form of new social movements and plays a significant role in social and political life. Since the 21st century, mass social movements in Western developed nations—such as the anti-globalization and anti-immigration waves, white racism, "Black Lives Matter," "Me Too," and the "Queer Movement"—have all possessed distinct identity politics characteristics. In terms of political consequences, identity politics has profoundly influenced the developmental trajectory of Western societies, leading not only to the polarization of Western society and politics but also posing major challenges to the global governance system and world peace. Therefore, summarizing the manifestations of contemporary Western identity politics, comprehensively understanding its institutional roots and social drivers, and reflecting on its historical limitations through the method of class analysis has profound theoretical significance and urgent practical meaning. This helps us recognize the current global changes and continuously advance socialism with Chinese characteristics.

I. Manifestations of Identity Politics in Contemporary Western Society

In traditional Western societies, factors such as bloodline, class, status, and gender determined the passivity and relative fixity of identity for individuals and groups. "In medieval Europe, lineage, gender, social status and other characteristics related to identity were always relatively fixed. Changing these took a long time and was constrained by institutionalized processes, in which the individual’s role was relatively passive." Only under the conditions of modernity did the uniqueness of identity enter the historical agenda of self-verification. In identity studies prior to the 1960s, the focus was primarily on the individual. However, once "identity" enters the realm of "politics," its focus primarily concerns a specific group. "Identity discourse seems to have become perfectly suited to the following purpose: by prompting people to identify a shared history, lifestyle, way of thinking, or outlook on life, identity has gained not only explanatory power but also political potential, because it encourages the strengthening of solidarity within the group and the expression of group-based pride." In the political context of modernity, to confirm one's identity, the subject must seek recognition from the "other" ^[1]; this is the authentic essence of identity politics. After "identity" was absorbed by the new social movements arising in the 1960s, "identity politics" became an important category for understanding contemporary politics. For the purposes of this article, contemporary Western identity politics can be defined as a political form that has emerged in Western developed countries since the 1960s, emphasizing respect for the differences between various groups and their cultures, recognizing the value of different cultural groups—especially marginalized social groups—and protecting the rights of various identity groups on this basis. We regard the new social movements of the 1960s as the beginning of contemporary Western identity politics, a trend and movement that now has a history of approximately 60 years. Using the subjects of identity politics as a classification standard, contemporary Western identity politics trends and movements can be summarized into the following four main forms.

(1) Left-wing identity politics movements After the 1960s, a convergence of various subjective and objective factors led to the deconstruction of the Marxist revolutionary logic, which had used class struggle as its political goal. The traditional model of socialist revolution gradually lost its fertile ground in developed countries. Western left-wing forces urgently needed to find new vehicles and paths to activate the revolutionary potential for resisting capitalism under new historical conditions. Left-wing scholars Laclau and Mouffe clearly pointed out the difficult situation facing the Western Left after the 1960s: "Left-wing thought today stands at a crossroads; the 'clear truths' of the past—classical forms of political analysis and reasoning, the nature of the forces in struggle, the true meaning of Leftist struggles and goals—have been challenged by a monumental historical transformation that has dissolved the foundations of these truths." It was against this historical backdrop that the New Left movement emerged. From the perspective of identity, the New Left was primarily composed of progressive intellectuals and young students who were dissatisfied with capitalism but did not identify with the traditional Left's model of class struggle. The New Left had its own organizations and publications, such as New Left Review, which has exerted great influence since its founding in 1960. To activate Marxist resistance against capitalism, the New Left turned comprehensively toward identity politics, aligning itself with new social movements and playing an important role in the fight for democratic rights, opposing mainstream culture, protesting the Vietnam War, and the environmental movement. It can be said that the New Left movement, with its pluralistic subjects of struggle, rich themes, and diverse forms of struggle, profoundly critiqued and resisted "post-industrial" capitalism. In some countries, factions even appeared that sought to change the existing capitalist social system through direct political movements and violent means. The May 1968 events ^[2] in France represented the climax of the large-scale mass movements led by the New Left. Because the New Left threatened bourgeois rule, it faced government suppression and fragmentation. It could be said that the large-scale student protests and mass movements driven by the New Left ended in 1968, but the New Left movement continued to participate in various forms of resistance and critique of capitalism through the lens of left-wing identity politics, such as the rights movements for ethnic minorities, feminist movements, Green Peace activism, and other new social movements. Today, the intellectual circles of developed European and American countries contain many heirs and practitioners of the New Left spirit. "The Left-wing social movements formed in 1968, prompted by the radical activism of the 'Three Ms' (Marx, Mao, Marcuse), were truly a movement that comprehensively subverted the modern mainstream socio-political order. By today, those university students who were once on the front lines have gracefully transformed into university professors; thus, the universities in Europe and America today have naturally become important venues for the display of Left-wing and Right-wing identity political recognition." Overall, as the most important critical force in identity politics over the last 60 years, the theory and practice of the New Left movement activated various marginalized groups that could not be integrated into the coercive structures of capitalism, becoming the most core and revolutionary political force among various identity politics movements. Left-wing identity politics has continuously launched critiques against the inherent inequalities of capitalism, promoting social progress and development.

(2) Ethnic minority rights movements From a racial perspective, there exist minority and disadvantaged groups in Western developed countries who receive unjust treatment, such as Black Americans, indigenous peoples, Asian groups, and other immigrant populations. As is well known, the bourgeois doctrine of natural rights proclaims liberty, equality, and fraternity; however, in American society, Black people have long suffered from unjust treatment, becoming "a burden on the American conscience." After the end of the American Civil War in the mid-19th century, although Black people obtained the status and rights of "freemen" as prescribed by law, the system of racial segregation meant that the treatment of Black Americans did not substantially improve compared to the pre-Civil War era. During this period, the struggle of Black people for identity rights took place primarily in the courts. After World War II, as the United States transitioned toward a post-industrial society, an intergenerational shift in values was triggered—what political scientist Ronald Inglehart called the "Silent Revolution." This change in culture and values laid a solid foundation for the Black rights revolution. In 1963, a large-scale organized mass march, the "March on Washington," was attended by hundreds of thousands of people, with the theme of demanding equal rights for Black people and opposing racial discrimination. Meanwhile, through various forms, Black Americans carried out identity recognition and assertions of rights, pursuing their own racial, cultural, and historical characteristics on the basis of identity equality. "Black people no longer felt ashamed for being different from white people in their names, skin color, hairstyles, or clothing; on the contrary, they began to do their best to showcase these differences to emphasize their own racial and cultural characteristics." All of this provided spiritual impetus for the struggle for equality. Under the resistance of the Civil Rights Movement, the U.S. government passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s, officially abolishing the system of racial segregation and guaranteeing the voting rights of minority groups in legal form. After the 1960s, the U.S. government adopted "Affirmative Action" to provide special consideration for Black groups, resulting in substantial improvements in their rights to education and employment. However, the economic, political, and cultural foundations for the discrimination against Black identity still exist, and American society has not eliminated systemic discrimination against Black people. Judging from the wave of protests that swept the entire Western world following the "George Floyd" incident in 2020, there is still a long road ahead for Black groups to achieve true identity equality. The rights movement of the Black community is a microcosm of the identity politics of other minority groups. Influenced by the Black Civil Rights Movement, other minorities—such as Hispanic immigrant groups, indigenous North Americans, and Chinese groups—have also launched continuous struggles to strive for identity equality, and their treatment has improved to some extent. However, due to deeply rooted white racial consciousness and cultural prejudice in the West, the identity politics of ethnic minorities seeking equality will continue to exist in Western society for a long time.

(3) New Feminist Movement Before the 1960s, the primary goals of the feminist movement were to strive for the right to vote and economic rights regarding equal labor for men and women; this can be called any the "First Wave" of the feminist movement. Identity politics gave feminism new connotations, causing the feminist movement after the 1960s to merge into broader new social movements. The New Feminist Movement broke through the previous limitation of being primarily composed of female social elites and began to develop into a widely participated mass movement. Starting from the perspective of identity equality, the comprehensive struggle of New Feminists shook the patriarchal-centered values and social structure, and the concept of identity equality between men and women has become a social consensus. The New Feminist Movement achieved significant results in areas concerning women's rights and interests, such as political participation, education and employment, abortion rights, property independence, and opposition to sexual harm. It is worth noting that the New Feminist Movement shared common values with other new social movements like the New Left, the counter-culture movement, and the Black Civil Rights Movement. Various identity politics movements promoted and influenced each other, jointly pushing for the improvement of identity equality and living conditions for disadvantaged groups in capitalist society. With the resurgence of conservatism in European and American societies in the 1980s, the large-scale mass movements pushed by feminists receded. However, the spiritual essence of the 1960s New Feminist Movement’s pursuit of identity equality was inherited by feminist movements after the 1980s, leading not only to major theoretical breakthroughs—Marxist feminism, postmodern feminism, cultural feminism, and ecofeminism are continuations of feminism in the new era—but also the emergence of a group of New Feminist thinkers such as Nancy Fraser, Iris Marion Young, and Juliet Mitchell. However, looking at the reality of current capitalist countries, the status of women has not been fundamentally improved. The latest form of the feminist movement, "Me Too," indicates that the revolution for women's rights in Western capitalist countries has a long way to go. It can be said that if the feminist movement remains merely at the level of appeals for identity equality, without fundamentally critiquing the capitalist social exploitation mechanism that produces gender inequality, true gender equality cannot be realized.

(4) White conservative identity politics While in the 1960s...

In the 1960s, while various new social movements were surging across the Western world, a group of conservative intellectuals—such as Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, and Seymour Lipset—feared that traditional values were being abandoned, that liberalism was facing a crisis of legitimacy, and that social order was being challenged. These conservative intellectuals severely criticized the identity politics movements influenced by the New Left. Objectively speaking, conservatism at that time primarily manifested as a cultural critique and was not integrated with traditional American racism. However, following the political shifts in Western societies after the 1960s, a long-dormant white identity consciousness rapidly merged with conservatism, becoming a major manifestation of conservative identity politics.

Historically, white groups in Western societies constituted the majority and held a natural position of social superiority. However, the struggle of minority groups for social rights and the rise of multiculturalism caused the relative status of white identity to decline, thereby stimulating white focus on identity consciousness. Particularly with the free flow of labor, goods, and capital driven by economic globalization, large numbers of immigrants flooded into developed Western countries, leading to significant changes in their demographic structures. Taking the United States as an example, by virtue of geographic advantages, Hispanic immigrants have overtaken African Americans to become the second-largest ethnic group in American society. Changes in the U.S. demographic structure brought about diversity in culture, religion, and even language; American society shifted from a "melting pot" to a "mosaic"—divided into small communities of different immigrant groups. This diversification of demographic composition profoundly influenced the direction of American identity politics, leading to an increase in potential political conflict. "Different demographic structures mean different constituent structures, different structures of political power, and different ideological structures." American conservative trends reacted most strongly to these changes in population and structure, manifesting a sense of crisis among white groups regarding the possible "extinction of their race and kind."

After Reagan took office, conservatism launched a backlash against the identity politics of Black and minority ethnic groups. Together with the Christian Right, they mobilized a large number of conservative white voters, tightly binding economic issues to socio-cultural topics and completely "activating" white identity politics. For modern white conservatives, resentment toward the civil rights movement and multiculturalism is nearly synonymous with a loathing of big government and social welfare. They harbor deep nostalgia for the "Golden Age" of America in the 1950s and fear that whites will lose their majority advantage and corresponding political and cultural power. They are convinced that the loss of white status and privilege is caused by government "reverse discrimination" policies, and that every gain made by ethnic minorities comes at the expense of white interests. One American political analyst pointed out incisively that the subtext of Trump’s "Make America Great Again" slogan is to "Make America White Again."

II. The Historical Drivers of the Rise of Contemporary Western Identity Politics

Since the 1960s, identity politics—carrying the vehicle of new social movements and mediated by culture and ideology—has sought to establish a form of democratic society that transcends the capitalist status quo through the struggles of various identity groups for recognition, opening a completely new path for the critique of and resistance to capitalism. However, as long as the structures of domination based on the private ownership of the means of production remain unchanged, capitalism will be in a state of constant crisis, and the identity crisis is precisely an important manifestation of this capitalist crisis.

(1) Economic Driver: Economic Globalization Dominated by Neoliberalism

At present, globalization dominated by neoliberalism is actually a "globalization of difference," creating new fault lines between "winners" and "losers" not only between nations but within them. The political and economic orders of many developed Western countries have failed to effectively address inequality, leading to social fragmentation and the emergence of ethnic opposition between those who support and those who oppose globalization. In the case of the United States, globalization has brought huge economic dividends, but the inherent flaws of free trade and the global flow of capital have also directly led to intensified income and wealth inequality among the American public, with the gap between rich and poor becoming increasingly severe. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that from 1968 to 2017, the share of total American household income held by the wealthiest 20% of households rose from 42.6% to 51.5%, while the shares of the other four quintiles gradually decreased, with poorer households decreasing the fastest. "Due to outsourcing and international competition, the global free trade system—which truly began to strengthen after the [Eastern European upheavals]^[4] in the 1990s—caused many jobs to flow from wealthy countries to other places. This also led to a deterioration in the economic conditions of a large portion of the original working class."

French economist Thomas Piketty argues that in the process of globalization, an unrestrained free-market economy inevitably leads to a rate of return on private capital that is greater than the rate of economic growth. Wealth becomes increasingly concentrated, and the gap between rich and poor—both between developed and undeveloped nations and within developed nations—will continue to widen: "This potentially threatens various democratic societies and the values of social justice upon which they are based." The financial crisis that broke out in 2008 left the negative effects of globalization fully exposed. Many people were reduced to abject poverty overnight due to mortgage defaults, while Wall Street giants snatched up enormous wealth. "The always-fragile understanding between the wealthy and the poor finally shattered. Those in the 1% grabbed the social wealth, leaving those in the 99% with nothing but anxiety and unease. In other words, the vast majority of Americans did not benefit from the country's growth at all." Globalization dominated by neoliberalism has not only amplified the inherent structural flaws of capitalism but also led to a decrease in the social mobility that the United States was once proud of. Robert Putnam, through field research into the upbringing of two generations of Americans, has shown us that class background already determines the life paths of the younger generation of Americans; it is difficult for youth from poor, lower-class backgrounds to cross the class chasm.

(2) Political Driver: The Crisis of Capitalist Democratic Politics

The capitalist democratic political system is built upon the foundation of private ownership of the means of production and inevitably possesses historical limitations. Identity politics emerged precisely because a crisis appeared within this capitalist democratic political system.

First, as a form of grassroots politics, identity politics is closely related to the decay of the elite politics that dominated traditional Western politics. American political polarization manifests first as a rupture in values; the Democratic Party and its supporters have become increasingly "left-leaning," triggering a strong backlash from the Republican Party and its supporters. Whether on political issues such as the appointment of Supreme Court justices and government officials, economic issues like budgets, taxes, and welfare, or socio-cultural issues such as immigration, gun control, abortion, and homosexuality, social fractures and disagreements are growing larger, with neither side willing to yield. American democratic politics has turned into an uncompromising "vetocracy" (veto-style democracy). Guided by the Democrats, Trump became the third president in history to face impeachment charges by Congress. Currently, as the COVID-19 pandemic worsens in the United States, the two parties—out of partisan self-interest for electoral gain—disregard the public currently mired in a struggle for survival and veto each other's economic relief bills. This "vetocracy" is unable to reach consensus on major issues concerning the national economy and people's livelihoods. In the power vacuum it creates, various mass movements inevitably emerge one after another.

Second, Western democratic political systems have been hijacked by interest groups and are unable to represent the will of the people; the public can only wage struggles through identity politics. It is well known that firearms proliferate among the American public, and shootings occur frequently. In recent years, due to intensified social contradictions, white racists have carried out multiple shootings, causing many innocent casualties, with even many school students not being spared. According to opinion polls by American media, the vast majority of Americans advocate for strict gun control. However, the National Rifle Association (NRA) resolutely opposes it, and this interest group is extremely powerful, influencing the U.S. Congress and government through donations, lobbying, and other means; bills for thorough gun control simply cannot pass through Congress. That is to say, Western democracy, hijacked by various interest groups, leads to a situation where the political demands of the broad masses cannot be satisfied through institutional channels. The public can only align themselves with groups defined by skin color, race, religion, or region, using collective group power to fight for various rights and interests.

Third, the primary form of identity politics is mass political participation that drifts outside the capitalist democratic political system. This is ultimately because the political parties and electoral systems—the foundation of Western democratic politics—have fallen into a dual dilemma: on the one hand, public trust in traditional Western political parties has declined, producing structural political apathy; on the other hand, the Western democratic system has artificially manufactured social fragmentation and political confrontation between identity groups with different positions.

(3) Cultural Driver: The Internal Contradictions of Multiculturalism

If we trace the cultural drivers of contemporary Western identity politics, it can be said that without multiculturalism, there would be no identity politics. The multiculturalism popular in Western society today is also a product of the new social movements of the 1960s, first rising in the United States and Canada. Its core concept is to respect the differences of different groups, acknowledge the value of different cultural groups, and protect the rights of vulnerable groups. Recognizing equality between different cultural and ethnic groups is the value aspiration of multiculturalism; its theoretical base color is equality built upon difference. It can be said that since the 1960s, multiculturalism has not only promoted pluralistic democracy and ethnic equality within developed Western countries but also provided an ideological weapon for the Third World to pursue equal political rights. By advocating theoretical slogans such as "globalism," "cultural pluralism," "identity politics," and the "politics of difference," multiculturalism has committed itself to promoting a cultural diversity that "includes the Other," allowing the values of equality and respect to be realized among a broader population and opening infinite political space for minority and marginalized groups to pursue identity equality.

However, when multiculturalism itself becomes the unshakable "political correctness" of identity politics, the identity politics that was originally a pursuit of equal rights for vulnerable groups reveals its negative side regarding the social and cultural order. This is specifically reflected in the following three aspects:

First, multiculturalism has detached itself from specific social and historical traditional contexts, advocating for the complete equality of the cultures of different identity groups. This highlights the inherent "friend-versus-enemy" and antagonistic nature of identity politics, seriously damaging the overall national identity. Looking at the identity group conflicts that have occurred in developed Western countries in recent years, multiculturalism cannot escape blame. The 2017 incident in Charlottesville, Virginia, involving the removal of the statue of General Robert E. Lee, was a typical event where cultural conflict triggered political conflict. Multiculturalism occupies the command heights of ideology and public opinion, seeking to dissolve the symbols of oppression of historically marginalized groups, which leads to the emergence of [historical nihilism]^[5], from which many political conflicts arise.

Second, based on the equality of cultural values among different identity groups, multiculturalism seeks "compensatory justice" for vulnerable groups—that is, advocating for "affirmative action" in language, education, and employment. This not only violates the basic norms of freedom of speech and equality of opportunity in a democratic society but in fact also results in whites and other minority groups suffering "reverse discrimination." "A study on university admissions showed that under 'affirmative action,' Black students were five times more likely to be admitted to university than white students, and even more likely than Asian students." On the surface, multiculturalism emphasizes the identity equality of groups, but in its actual policy orientation, it reinforces the differences between identity groups and creates the cultural basis for identity confrontation. "This excessive protection of plural rights infringes upon the universalist equal rights of individual citizens and pierces the baseline of equal citizenship. Within the nation-state, the doctrine of the supremacy of plural groups weakens social capital, destroys social integration, and disintegrates public reason." When the righteous cause of pursuing identity equality forms a new cultural hegemony, the cohesion and democratic values upon which Western society depends for survival will face a major crisis.

Third, as the core concept of identity politics, multiculturalism is essentially a form of cultural relativism. From the perspective of [historical materialism]^[6], the cultures of different groups do indeed have their own history and value, but this absolutely does not mean that the values of different groups are absolutely equal or that there is no distinction between advanced and backward. Multiculturalism pursues absolute equality without any baseline consensus; society will only gradually become "fragmented." Of course, representative trends of multiculturalism, such as the communitarianism represented by Charles Taylor, also advocate for the priority of the "community" over the individual. However, the "community" they flaunt is limited to specific marginalized groups in a cultural sense and does not include the mainstream population of Western society; it is not a political community in a holistic sense.

When multiculturalism becomes the cultural foundation of identity politics, the inherent rationality and legitimacy of identity politics are dissolved by the hegemony of multiculturalism, gradually degenerating into a form of resistant performance in the aesthetic sense. From the perspective of the historical materialist conception of history, placing the hope for a solution to identity politics in culture not only fails to achieve true equality and pluralism among different identity groups, but inevitably leads to antagonism and conflict between them.

III. The Inherent Limitations of Contemporary Western Identity Politics

The social and political movements of any identity group represent only the demands of that specific group; when these demands exceed certain boundaries, they encounter rejection and resistance from heterogeneous groups or from the state's integral identity. Identity politics has transformed democratic politics—which ought to mold a holistic identity—into tribal politics seeking belonging within narrow ethnic enclaves. It has shifted from pursuing the legitimate rights and interests of disadvantaged groups to a politics of difference and antagonism. This uncompromising politics has become exceptionally prominent in developed Western countries since the 21st century. Taking the United States as an example, within the context of identity politics, one side consists of white people in the Midwest and rural areas centers on the WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) core, manifesting as a form of political and cultural conservatism. The other side is a collection of minority ethnic groups and white elite-cosmopolitans living in large cities on the East and West Coasts; the two sides find it difficult to share a common language. Identity politics and its dilemma highlight the core issues of modern politics: How to define the identity of individuals and their groups in a society changing so rapidly? In a pluralistic and fluid society, do unified norms exist for the coexistence of diverse identities? How can we remend a society torn apart by identity politics? The resolution of these issues concerns not only the future developmental direction of Western society but also the destiny of globalization. Analyzed from the perspective of historical materialism, the historical limitations of contemporary Western identity politics are particularly reflected in the following three aspects.

(1) The Obscuring and Dissolution of Class Politics

"Multi-culturalist identity politics, labeled as 'politics of difference,' 'politics of dignity,' and 'life politics,' appears very radical on the surface, as if cultural critique and the pursuit of equality have permeated every tiny pore of life. In reality, however, these infinitely pluralistic and increasingly granular demands for cultural identity and equality do not touch upon the substance of interests, nor do they seek political and economic equality that attempts to change reality." Identity politics, with cultural resistance as its main form, cannot change the private ownership of the means of production under capitalism, nor can it change the capitalist system of exploitation; thus, it is not a true social revolution.

First, the discourse of identity politics constructed by the Left has abandoned the Marxist method of class analysis and made significant ideological concessions to capitalism. Identity politics issues such as racial discrimination, sexism, and indigenous rights obscure the basic contradictions of capitalism that cause these problems. Marx once clearly pointed out: "A Negro is a Negro. He only becomes a slave in certain relations. A cotton-spinning jenny is a machine for spinning cotton. It only becomes capital in certain relations. Torn from these relationships, it is no more capital than gold in itself is money, or sugar the price of sugar." Skin color is a physiological genetic factor; Black people cannot change their racial identity. However, a Black person as a slave is determined by the actual relations of a specific society and changes along with changes in social relations. Under specific social conditions, a Black person may no longer be a slave but a citizen. Therefore, identity politics movements in Western capitalist countries are actually an obscuring of the inequality in real political and economic relations. Identity politics, aiming to safeguard the rights of specific groups, diverts true social focus and social contradictions. The bourgeoisie also consciously utilizes identity politics issues to dissolve class struggle, encouraging and funding research on identity, gender, and culture. Identity politics that does not launch a substantive critique of capitalism obscures the basic contradictions of capitalism.

Second, identity politics has moved from new social movements into the ivory tower of the cultural sphere; its revolutionary elements are continually dissolved, and it has degenerated from a politics of liberation to a politics of performance. In the 1960s, identity politics combined with new social movements such as the civil rights movement, promoting equality and progress in American society. However, in practice, these social movements rooted in identity politics have become increasingly narrow. As American society entered the Reagan era, the subjects of identity politics shifted from the diverse groups of the 1960s—such as workers, Black people, and students—increasingly toward university faculty, students, and news media journalists within the ivory tower. These intellectuals no longer take the self-improvement of the group and the common good of society as their ultimate goal, abandoning the political-economic critique of Western social inequality since globalization. "The revolutionary subject of contemporary capitalist society cannot be an individual cultural-difference group; it must return to class. Only through the total intervention of Marxism can a universalized struggle be formed. On the surface, identity politics appears to have great resistant power, but in reality, it is an ideological framework that matches the latest stage of capitalism. The liberating force within identity differences is insufficient to shake the capitalist institutional system; the attempt to find a true revolutionary force among these marginal groups excluded by mainstream symbols is impossible to realize."

Third, identity politics has unconsciously become an ally of neoliberal ideology. The greatest dilemma currently facing Western leftist identity politics is that it has not touched upon the most central critique of capital; instead, it has become a collaborator with neoliberalism in practice. The main reason is that identity politics lacks a common goal and value pursuit to unify the forces resisting capitalism. These temporary, patched-together alliances split when they do not need each other, making it impossible to truly and inherently resist the power of capital. "The cultural focus of leftist politics has split the Left into identitarian factions; we have lost a set of common ideals and goals, a common view of history, common values, a common language, and even objective and universal modes of rationality. The cultural focus of leftist politics has taken over self-centered and trivial forms of politics; this political form focuses more on momentary events, means, and objects, rather than providing a more robust, serious, and comprehensive insight into the systematic correlation of socio-economic conditions." For example, the Left, which should have supported workers, failed to help those white blue-collar workers who lost their jobs in globalization, leading this "silent majority" to choose Trump in 2016—this was actually the bitter fruit of the Left's own identity politics. Lacking the core dimension of the critique of capital, no anti-capitalist alliance can form common interests and goals.

When identity politics obscures class politics and cultural critique replaces the critique of capital, no matter how boisterous and clamorous the movements of an identity-politics nature may be, they will ultimately only become political movements that cannot achieve any true political results. Such was the case with the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, and the French "Yellow Vest" movement cannot escape such a fate.

(2) Making Populism a Political Norm in Western Society

Since the 21st century, following major changes in Western society, populism has become the norm in European and American politics. Although there is currently a great deal of research on populism, the concept is full of ambiguity and can accommodate various social trends and movements. Beyond the opposition between the "pure and good people" and the "corrupt political elite," it is difficult to find common ground among these trends. According to academic research, four main populist movements have occurred in modern history: the first three were the "People's Party" movement in the United States and the "Narodnik" movement ^[7] in Russia at the turn of the 20th century; the Latin American labor movements in the mid-20th century; and the grassroots struggles for distributive justice in the Asia-Pacific region at the end of the 20th century. The world is currently experiencing a fourth wave of populism, mainly related to the unbalanced political and economic development of various countries brought about by globalization, manifesting in different forms and degrees in both developed and developing countries. The first three waves of populism were all related to labor movements led by the Left and possessed clear overtones of class struggle. Because populism in current developed countries carries obvious elements of identity politics, different identity groups with a populist nature all claim to represent "the people," and both leftist and right-wing populism tend toward extremism. In the United States, for instance, the rising leftist populism represented by Bernie Sanders and the right-wing populism supporting Trump have both become influential political forces in American society. The "Occupy Wall Street" movement and the "Tea Party" movement that emerged after the 2008 financial crisis both had sharp identity-politics characteristics, attracting the "forgotten majority" who were dissatisfied with the establishment of both parties. Populism has degenerated into a political symbol for identity politics, moving from an identity politics seeking equality of rights toward a politics of populism.

First, right-wing identity politics in developed countries generally opposes social pluralism and is more inclined toward exclusionary nationalism, which gives right-wing populism in developed Western countries strong racist tendencies. Whether it be the Brexiteers in the UK or Trump supporters, they all declare, "We want our country back." Many grassroots white people did not become beneficiaries of globalization and suddenly became "strangers in their own land." The emergence of right-wing populism, besides the fact that many white workers were the frustrated losers of globalization, is also related to the extremist development of leftist identity politics. Eric Hobsbawm pointed out that identity politics pursues preferences, differential treatment, or special treatment within a given political community and is therefore a politics of catharsis and pretense. Marxism supported by various "post-" theories ^[8] and multiculturalism together provided ideological resources for leftist identity politics. However, "the backlash caused by affirmative action policies adopted to support specific minority groups and excessive cultural pluralism is very powerful to this day, and the problem remains." For example, Mark Lilla criticized the 2016 US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, arguing that her policies were explicitly directed at African American, Hispanic, LGBT, and female voters, while forgetting other groups in American society, such as the white working class. "Data shows that the white working class and those with devout religious convictions are exactly such groups. A full two-thirds of white voters without a college degree and eighty percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump." Similarly, it was precisely a group "forgotten" in the wave of European integration that voted the UK out of the European Union.

Second, populists are more keen on direct democracy; mass movements are the primary form of populist identity politics. Populist leaders are generally unwilling to rely on highly complex party organizations to act as intermediaries between themselves and "the people." "When the existing political system can no longer satisfy people's demands, people will gradually lose confidence in traditional politics and parties... more and more disappointed voters will either be indifferent to routine elections or be open and receptive to new radical programs. At this time, populism makes its stage debut as an alternative. It adopts a powerful 'common man' communication style, providing direct and 'consensual' solutions to complex social problems." Social media such as Twitter and Facebook, based on internet technology, are playing an increasingly large role in current populist movements. Populist leaders use these social media platforms to close the distance between themselves and the identity groups that support them, striving for their identification, while simultaneously engaging in struggle against identity groups or news media that oppose them. In short, identity-politicized populism has deepened the crisis of representation in Western democratic societies.

Third, from the perspective of identity politics, populists have a strong anti-elite and anti-establishment inclination. "For populists, the following equation always holds: anyone other than them can be dismissed as immoral and thus not a member of the people in the strict sense. In other words, populism is always some form of identity politics." But regarding the current situation in the United States, neither the leftist populism represented by Sanders nor the right-wing populism supporting Trump can truly represent the American people. Because identity politics does not point toward all groups, some forgotten groups cannot find representatives in the existing system; the vacuum of rights is filled by populist leaders, and the West is currently experiencing such a historical moment. Francis Fukuyama pointed out: "When populists declare 'I support the people,' they usually do not mean the whole people. The people they speak of are a certain category of people, usually defined by race or ethnicity, and often divided according to traditional cultural values or traditional national identity."

From a philosophical perspective, the identity groups that populism claims to represent are closer to the "imagined communities" proposed by Benedict Anderson, which provides an infinite space for populist discourse and practice. Right-wing populism utilizes new media to cater to the anxieties and fears of the masses, emphasizing the opposition between "the people" and "the elites" and the identity distinction between "us" and "them," thereby forming an unstoppable political force. Steve Bannon, the white nationalist and chief strategist for the Trump administration, stated bluntly before the 2016 election: "The longer the Democrats talk about identity politics, the easier it is for me to defeat them. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." Looking at the 2020 U.S. presidential election, identity politics remains one of the focal issues that both parties must confront. When political parties and leaders with populist leanings cater to the masses' identity anxieties and fears, intensifying antagonism between different groups, a severe crisis for Western democracy becomes inevitable.

3. Identity Politics Threatens World Peace and Development

In response to the series of social and cultural conflicts brought about by identity politics since the 1960s, Columbia University professor Mark Lilla has pointed out that identity politics has brought more problems to America than superficial harmony. It prevents young people from looking beyond their small circles defined by race, gender, and class to view issues through the broader perspective of American citizenship and values, rendering them indifferent to the world outside their specific identity niche. The conflicts brought by identity politics not only cause a "clash of civilizations" ^[9] within developed capitalist countries; judging from the political reality since the 2008 financial crisis, this "clash of civilizations" has been transmitted to the field of international politics, seriously threatening world peace and development.

First, identity politics and national separatist movements in the Western world. In recent decades, globalization has advanced triumphantly, with goods, technology, and information flowing unimpeded worldwide. Consumerist culture seemed to smooth over the internal differences between nations. Francis Fukuyama even predicted at the end of the Cold War that a "universal homogenous state" would emerge after the "end of history," where "the space of the earth will be completely homogenized; history, traditions, cultures, and customs integrated with a certain piece of land can be quickly cut and rapidly rearranged." In reality, this homogenization is only one facet of globalization. Simultaneously, in both developed and underdeveloped regions, ethno-separatist movements dedicated to maintaining the uniqueness and pride of their group's racial, cultural, religious, and historical traditions have begun to emerge and exert significant influence. Examples include the demands for national autonomy in French-speaking Quebec and Scotland, as well as the revival of subcultures in many regions. That is to say, when the preservation of a group's identity uniqueness transcends the egalitarian demands of pluralism, identity politics will cause major fragmentation within the West itself.

Second, identity politics and the wave of "de-globalization" in the Western world. "The new capitalist order, characterized by marketization and globalization, directly impacts original social norms, values, and beliefs, causing individuals to fall into a state of lonely and deprived insecurity, losing the reliable sources that maintained their identity." For developing countries, how to reconstruct social norms and cultural identity under the impact of Western-led globalization has become a difficult problem of the era. For Western developed countries, the profit-seeking nature of capital leads it to move to places with labor-intensive production and low costs. Globalization provided the convenient conditions and environment for this transnational transfer, resulting in the hollowing out of industries in developed countries and the unemployment of large numbers of industrial workers. The existing capitalist political and economic order has failed to effectively respond to the identity anxieties of the masses, thus leading to the fragmentation of the people and the polarization of politics.

The 2008 financial crisis essentially pulled the rug out from under the optimistic belief in globalization. Grassroots citizens opposed to globalization began to use political movements and their votes to express dissatisfaction with the elite class and globalization. After taking office, Trump adopted a series of domestic and foreign policies; the core essence of "Make America Great Again" is a form of "de-globalization" isolationism. These political actions indeed made the white working class, who were frustrated by globalization, more united and equipped with a clearer sense of identity and political action. However, isolationist policies—such as brandishing the "tariff baton" against China, building border walls to crack down on illegal immigration, proposing the return of manufacturing to the United States, and various "withdrawals from groups" ^[10]—cannot substantially resolve the social contradictions of Western capitalism, especially the problems of the widening gap between rich and poor and class contradictions. The "de-globalization" spawned by identity politics will not only bring greater uncertainty to the United States and the world but also fails to help address the common challenges facing humanity.

Third, identity politics and the "clash of civilizations." At the beginning of the post-Cold War era, while the entire Western world was immersed in the cheers of the "end of history," the famous conservative scholar Samuel Huntington keenly perceived that history would not end, and that world politics would see conflicts between different civilizations. During the Cold War, some countries could choose non-alignment, but in the post-Cold War era, people have had to ask basic questions about identity: "Who are we?", "Where do we belong?", and "Who are our enemies?". Whether for nation-states that have already disintegrated or are facing disintegration, or for countries with religious plurality, these are major questions that must be asked. Religious, civilizational, and racial conflicts masked under the ideological bipolarity of the Cold War were bound to surface. "For those seeking identity and reinventing ethnicity, enemies are essential, and the potentially most dangerous enemies occur across the fault lines between the world's major civilizations." Huntington concluded that modernization would bring changes in the strength of the world's major civilizations, with the expansion of Islam and the revival of the East Asian economy, alongside the relative decline of Western civilizational power; the world would inevitably experience a "clash of civilizations." In fact, this is the manifestation of the conflictual nature of identity politics at the level of international politics, and as Western power relatively declines, this New Cold War thinking will become increasingly prominent.

In May 2019, Kiron Skinner, then Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. State Department, explicitly pointed out that the competition between China and the U.S. is essentially a clash of civilizations and ideologies. Even more shocking to the world, she compared the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union to a "fight within the Western family," whereas China is the first non-white competitor the U.S. has faced in its history. This is undoubtedly a manifestation of the deep-seated racial prejudice of some American politicians in international politics. If development continues according to this New Cold War thinking, the "Thucydides Trap" is inevitable. Dividing identity groups based on different world cultures and religions and believing that conflict between groups is inevitable is, in essence, a form of "Western-centrism." As Amartya Sen pointed out, in social analysis, drawing lines by civilization is a highly aggressive practice that stifles other—more rich and varied—ways of understanding humanity. Even before the clarion call for a clash of civilizations is sounded, it sets the stage for misunderstanding every person in the world.

Once the modern concept of identity enters politics, it is quickly absorbed by Western society, and developed countries have become important fields for the practice of identity politics. When identity becomes a political theme, any political issue involving identity easily gains the firm support of specific groups, causing ethnic confrontation and social fragmentation; meanwhile, a country's foreign policy is also easily "hijacked" by extreme nationalist tendencies, seriously threatening world peace and development. In short, contemporary Western identity politics is a historical product of capitalism reaching a certain stage. Like capitalism itself, identity politics has not always existed, nor can it exist eternally. Contemporary Western identity politics is a politics of difference; its essence is the expression of economic and political inequality and conflict within the capitalist framework at the socio-cultural level. The one-dimensional development of identity politics will bring catastrophic impacts to the West internally and to the international community. The people of the world should join hands to face the challenges brought by identity politics. How should we dissipate the negative effects of identity politics? Where is humanity headed? This is an important "question of the era" for the 21st century. Facing changes unseen in a century, we believe that only by subverting and transcending ^[11] capitalism and promoting the building of a community with a shared future for humanity can the problem of identity politics be fundamentally resolved.

(Authors: Associate Professor, School of Marxism, Anhui Normal University; 2019 Master's student in Marxist Theory, Anhui Normal University) Online Editor: Caihong Source: Studies on Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping Theories