Chen Yuntao: An Analysis of the Influence of Identity Politics on Contemporary Western Left-wing Movements
Since entering the post-industrial era, faced with the historical predicament of the waning revolutionary momentum of the working class, some Western leftists have drawn inspiration from liberal values such as multiculturalism and begun to employ identity politics as a development strategy to break through the impasse of the leftist movement. Under their guidance and promotion, identity politics has now evolved into a major force within the contemporary Western leftist movement. However, this form of identity politics—obsessed with the rights of difference, cultural equity, and fragmented struggles—has, in its subsequent development, actually undermined leftist political ideals. It has not only severely weakened the Left's own strength but has also created a cultural and social structure conducive to the expansion of financial capital. Particularly after the outbreak of the 2008 international financial crisis, the Western leftist movement—which originally symbolized a critical and progressive spirit—has, under the inducement of identity politics, increasingly come to be viewed by the Western public as a conservative force hindering social equality. Meanwhile, right-wing populist forces, represented by Donald Trump, have made a grand entrance under the guise of being "anti-establishment and anti-elite," garnering massive public support. So, what has happened to the Western Left? How should we view this? In this regard, there is an urgent need to use Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods to re-examine the practical consequences of the Western leftist movement dominated by identity politics. We must deeply analyze the actual impact of identity politics on the Western leftist movement and the deep-seated reasons behind it. This is of great significance for further understanding and observing the future trends of the Western leftist movement and, subsequently, reflecting on how to better promote the revival of world socialism in the 21st century.
I. Mobilizing Politics through Identity: A Typical Strategy of the Contemporary Western Leftist Movement
As a development strategy adopted by the Western Left to break through its predicament in the post-industrial era, identity politics primarily constructs its discourse and carries out political mobilization around the issue of "identity," while setting the realization of diverse and equal treatment for socially disadvantaged groups as its goal of struggle. Under the leadership and utilization of certain leftist groups, identity politics has now become a "powerful weapon" for the contemporary Western leftist camp in its struggle to narrow economic inequality between classes. Generally speaking, the Western leftist movement dominated by identity politics possesses the following typical characteristics.
First, it no longer regards the working class as the sole subject of opposition to capitalism, but rather incorporates the diverse identities suffering from various forms of oppression within capitalist society into the category of political movement subjects.
Because the improvement of material living standards and welfare benefits in the post-industrial era has weakened the revolutionary nature of the working class, some Western leftist theorists have begun to deny the foundational status of the "class" [1] category in anti-capitalist movements, concluding that the working class in capitalist countries has been institutionalized. From their perspective, on the one hand, the confrontation between workers and capitalists does not arise from within capitalist relations of production, but rather from the "tension between the relations of production and the identity of the social actors (including workers)." This implies that the antagonism between labor and capital is real—and workers thus acquire revolutionary consciousness—only when workers perceive capitalism as a social relation that negates their identity, hinders the realization of their potential, and obstructs the construction of an ideal society. However, the post-industrial working class has clearly ceased to view capitalist relations of production as antagonistic due to their affluent living conditions, which inevitably leads to the loss of their status as the subject of revolution.
On the other hand, contemporary capitalist oppression has long since exceeded the scope of a specific class, "affecting not only workers but also many people in other fields." In such a society, "diversification and difference have dissolved all the old certainties and universalities," and the original, homogenous class "has been torn asunder." Simultaneously, differentiated and pluralistic identity recognitions have emerged within the fissures of class. Since groups with different identities have their own specific interests and modes of struggle, this inevitably causes political struggle to trend toward diversification. This means that in modern capitalist society, where struggles are increasingly complex and multifaceted, the category of "class," while not having completely exited the stage, has transformed into merely one of the diverse identities of the subject. Consequently, class struggle is nothing more than a type of identity politics and "has become increasingly unimportant in the contemporary world."
Based precisely on this understanding, these leftists conceive of modern society as a complex field full of diverse political struggles "in which a large number of different subjects must be recognized and accepted." They believe that by granting the status of revolutionary subject to "identities" built on cultural, value-based, or conceptual recognition—such as Black people, women, and sexual minorities (LGBTQ+)—they can break through the limitations of the "class" category. By doing so, they aim to unite all systemically oppressed people in capitalist society across party and class lines, thereby achieving more effective political mobilization. For example, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement that broke out in the United States in 2011 used the cross-class identity of "the 99% of ordinary masses" as its mobilization basis. Its participants included not only the working class but also university teachers and students, media professionals, engineers, and some marginalized groups. The identity in conflict with them was the "1% of financial oligarchs." Similarly, the "Global Climate Strikes" sparked in many Western countries in September 2019, though primarily involving middle school and university students, attempted to broaden its mobilization scope through the even wider identity of "everyone" (Everyone), successfully attracting some companies to join the strike. This demonstrates that "identity" based on cultural recognition has comprehensively replaced "class" based on economic relations as the important foundation for such leftists to conduct political mobilization. They no longer emphasize the class conflict between workers and capitalists, but rather focus more on the conflict between a specific identity as the owner of certain group interests and other interest owners.
Second, it no longer emphasizes transforming capitalist relations of production or achieving the economic liberation of humanity, but instead commits to pursuing the liberation of the individual in daily life or self-consciousness through cultural critique.
As the manifestations of social conflict in post-industrial capitalist society have increasingly shifted from class conflict over material interests to identity conflict over equal rights and recognition, inequalities of race, gender, and sexual orientation have replaced class inequality as the issues of greatest public concern. In response, some leftists have begun to question the decisive role of the economic base in the social structure and tend to believe that interest conflicts in advanced capitalist societies no longer involve the sphere of production where surplus value is appropriated, but have shifted to the spheres of daily life and consumption outside of work. In their view, the unfair treatment encountered by members of advanced capitalist societies does not stem from specific economic relations and political systems, but rather from the "discrimination and harm of the Other's perspective" [2] in daily life. In this context, the primary goal of resisting capitalist oppression must shift from achieving economic equality to achieving cultural or identity-based pluralistic equality. The cultural sphere—which carries the perspective of the Other and has thus become highly politicized—has become the "zone of struggle" for marginalized groups to resist capitalist oppression. Taking the "Cultural Renaissance Movement" launched by Black Americans in the 1950s to fight for equal rights as an example, they hoped to reconstruct Black cultural and racial characteristics by changing symbolic terms, displaying race-specific clothing and hairstyles, etc. They hoped that by emphasizing Black racial culture or identity in this way, they could demand status equality and cultural recognition from the mainstream group to counter the systemic oppression of capitalist society.
Today, under the influence of postmodernism, this form of identity politics further limits human liberation to the realms of contingency, subjective consciousness, individual uniqueness, and identity confirmation. It pins the critique of capitalism and human liberation on the freedom of self-consciousness, sensory consciousness, and aesthetic consciousness, as well as on the artistic practice of technology, politics, and life, seeking merely the liberation of individuality and desire in the sphere of daily life. From this, it is evident that the struggle goals of contemporary Western leftist identity politics are no longer just to safeguard the material interests of workers and achieve economic liberation, but to pursue the recognition of differentiated identities and respect for specific cultural values, as well as to realize the liberation of individuality and desire, and the liberation of the sensory and aesthetic realms.
Third, it no longer emphasizes traditional party politics and unified class action, but instead advocates for individuals to fight alone against the entire capitalist world based on individual differences in identity and self-set goals.
The historical transformation of the working class from a revolutionary subject into a marginalized social group has also profoundly influenced the social revolutionary outlook of some leftists. In their view, the nature of social revolution in the post-industrial era has undergone a fundamental change—that is, from a movement of necessity in the historical process to a purely contingent setting. The purpose of revolution is no longer a profound manifestation of historical mission and historical laws; instead, due to a lack of long-term planning, it focuses only on immediate, individual, and contingent goals. Correspondingly, the inherent driving force of revolution has shifted from the original class will and collective action to the continuous and consistent negation and subversion of the existing order at the cultural and psychological levels by individuals. This shift in the revolutionary outlook has further triggered a turn in the outlook on practice, causing these leftists to shift their focus from the systemic oppression of capitalism to the existential state of the individual subject. Thus, the holistic, organized, and necessary movement aimed at class struggle and wealth redistribution has been abandoned, replaced by isolated individuals fighting alone against the entire capitalist world.
Moreover, this mode of political struggle pushes individualism to its extreme. It emphasizes examining the power structure of capitalist society from the perspective of differentiated and individualized identities, where every participating individual is endowed with uniqueness and difference that distinguishes them from other subjects. This is why influential identity politics movements in recent years, such as "Black Lives Matter" and "Me Too," all possess clear anarchist tendencies. These movements lack a unified core leadership, a clear program of struggle, or a tight political organization; from start to finish, they operate through a "decentralized" action model, fighting separate battles within capitalist society. The participating subjects of these movements constantly attempt to counter the overarching power structure by establishing and strengthening the status of identity difference and utilizing multicultural power at the micro-level, pursuing equal rights in cultural recognition or value choices. In this process, a flat organizational structure rather than a vertical hierarchy has become the most distinctive feature of this political movement.
II. Working at Cross-Purposes: The Practical Predicament of Contemporary Leftist Identity Politics Movements
Although engaging in identity politics seemed to bring hope of revitalization to the Western leftist movement as it fell into decline, and for a time promoted the Left's cause against capitalist oppression, the practical consequences and developmental trends suggest a different story. Not only has identity politics failed to truly lead the Western leftist movement out of its historical predicament, but in the 21st century—marked by frequent capitalist crises and the return of economic issues to the center of political movements—it has further deepened the Left's predicament at the practical level. This result is clearly at cross-purposes with the original intention of revitalizing the movement.
First, the leftist movement dominated by identity politics emphasizes identity-based or cultural equality and pluralism in a one-sided manner while ignoring the factual class inequality existing in capitalist society. This is equivalent to a disguised recognition of the legitimacy of capitalist rule.
In the horizon of identity politics, although capitalist society contains various forms of inequality, as long as pluralistic identities are treated equally and as long as different identity groups possess a certain proportion of representation and discourse power within existing institutions, such a society can be considered "faultless." Consequently, this politics' resistance to capitalism actually drifts outside of class relations. At the same time, as the bourgeoisie continuously releases a so-called modern, progressive goodwill by embracing diversity, multiculturalism, and women's rights, "new social movement forces"—such as anti-racism, feminism, multiculturalism, and LGBTQ+ rights—have begun to form alliances with "high-end elite forces" from Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. Within this alliance, progressive forces collude with cognitive capitalism, particularly the power of financial capital, wherein "the former imparts more charisma to the latter." This elitism, glossed over by equality and diversity, not only dissolves the revolutionary spirit of the Left but also surreptitiously replaces the political ideal of being "over neoliberalism" with being "for neoliberalism." Against this backdrop, flaunting Leftist values or joining Leftist movements has become a speculative means for certain individuals to earn personal fame and achieve class upward mobility within the capitalist system. Leftist politics has thus completely degenerated from a radical politics—which originally promoted social equality by creating difference and emphasizing recognition—into a "performative politics" of abstract aesthetic significance, unrelated to resisting capitalist oppression.
A case in point regarding marginalized groups rising into the cultural elite is the Black American writer Ta-Nehisi Coates. As Cornel West aptly criticized, Coates is a representative figure of the American neoliberal camp whose secret to fame lies in skillfully utilizing the "crocodile tears" of neoliberals—who are unwilling to share power or relinquish privilege—to secure status within the establishment. His narrow racial tribalism and shortsighted neoliberal political outlook do not touch upon Wall Street's greed, the many misdeeds of the American empire, or the Black elite's indifference toward the problem of poverty. More seriously, this increasingly decadent Leftist discourse is now exploited by the bourgeois ruling elite to simplify complex socio-economic problems into mere differences of ethnic identity, thereby forging it into a political tool to deceive voters. Taking the U.S. Democratic Party, which is most adept at this, as an example: shortly after the 2020 George Floyd incident, Democratic politicians like Biden and Pelosi staged "kneeling" performances to win the support of Black voters. During the 2024 U.S. election, while campaigning for Democratic presidential candidate Harris, former President Obama used the rhetoric of identity politics to carry out blatant moral kidnapping of voters. He urged Black voters that they must vote for Harris because she is Black "just like you," and leveled harsh criticism at Black men who did not support her, claiming "you just don't feel the idea of having a woman as president." Clearly, these political manipulations by Democratic politicians evade the class roots behind racial inequality and cannot change the plight of vulnerable groups. Regrettably, the contemporary American Left has not only failed to act against this but has instead "become politically willing to serve as the 'little tail' of the Democratic 'Donkey' (the party's emblem)." As Mark Lilla criticized, although identity politics can make American society more inclusive and marginalized groups more visible, its inverse logic has caused American politics to degenerate into a "Pseudo-Politics" of self-expression. It works hand in glove with neoliberalism to jointly create a cultural atmosphere of refined egoism.
This also demonstrates that the "de-classed" struggle methods of identity politics have led the Western Leftist movement onto a path of fragmented cultural reformism. This not only fails to deliver any substantial blow to the capitalist system but instead brings Western Leftist values into a subtle consensus with the logic of capital. It even results in the developmental logic of the contemporary Western Leftist movement being distorted into a manifestation of the ruling logic of contemporary capitalism.
Second, the Leftist movement dominated by identity politics utilizes a "politics of victimization" to continuously trigger identity conflicts and value oppositions within society, which is equivalent to placing obstacles in the way of the masses uniting into a collective force against capitalism. Today’s identity politics is deeply influenced by the principle that "the personal is political." It pays particular attention to incorporating the unique experiences of victimization of individual subjects within capitalist society and politicizing them. This makes the construction of a subject's identity increasingly dependent on the "affective solidarity" formed between subjects through shared experiences of victimization, causing Western Leftist politics to increasingly degenerate into a "politics of victimization." However, the premise of political mobilization through the construction of a "victim identity" is that the group is indeed oppressed and, to some extent, harmed. This mode of mobilization essentially promotes the politicization of identity and completes the construction of recognition by reinforcing one’s own experience of pain, rather than eliminating the root causes of that pain. Consequently, while the experience of being a victim is emphasized, the social roots that trigger inequality are never subjected to substantive critique. Simultaneously, the emergence of a "politics of victimization" born out of painful experiences deepens the estrangement between different groups. It no longer aspires to equal rights and human liberation, nor is it satisfied with gaining respect and recognition from mainstream society; instead, it continuously emphasizes the relationship of oppression and being oppressed between minority marginalized groups and mainstream society, hoping to establish a reverse "hierarchy of victimization" in society. Under this system, the more "victim identities" one possesses, the more one can "play the tragedy card" to demand privilege.
From this, it is evident that the "victim complex" is essentially the self-admiring logic of the bourgeois elite. It only amplifies the self-interested individual rationality of civil society, causing political movements to be "restricted to the social margins and in danger of degenerating into narcissism, hedonism, aestheticism, or personal therapy." Ultimately, this causes the Western Leftist movement to degenerate completely into a tool for specific groups to pursue narrow interests. In this context, although the necessity and importance of the masses uniting as a collective anti-capitalist force have become increasingly prominent, the Western Leftist movement dominated by identity politics has already become a stumbling block to this historical process.
Third, the mechanism of differentiated recognition followed by the identity politics-dominated Leftist movement causes narrow group interests to replace the general interests of society as the primary goal of the movement in practice. This is equivalent to pursuing an alienated objective of struggle.
The foundation of the identity recognition mechanism lies in the difference between different subjects. Once a subject realizes a certain difference between themselves and other groups, this difference inversely stimulates their identification with the group to which they belong, providing the kinetic energy for identity politics movements. Under the dominance of differentiated identity recognition, the principle of individuality is pushed to the extreme. Every participant in identity politics movements highlights their distinct self-uniqueness and clear distinction from "the other," thereby facilitating the construction of a specific identity. However, this sense of identification and belonging is actually rooted in the imagination and possesses subjective arbitrariness. Therefore, the differences of various identities are not fixed; new identities are continuously constructed through the emphasis on these differences. This stipulates that constructing a specific identity recognition is insufficient to counter the fluidity of postmodern values, nor can it restabilize intimate connections between people in a postmodern context of increasing interpersonal alienation. Instead, it causes identity recognition to fluctuate frequently along with the shift of the subject's attention.
More importantly, because different subjects in fact possess pluralistic interest demands, this inevitably causes the subject's identity recognition to change alongside their interest demands. This eventually results in the subject taking the pursuit of "differentiated identity" as the end of the movement itself. Influenced by this, the contemporary Western Leftist identity politics no longer prioritizes power-oppression relations and institutional structures, but rather emphasizes the freedom of lifestyle differences, as if all different distinctions possess equal political significance. It "extramally emphasizes the importance of a particular identity while remaining indifferent to the socio-political ethics that connect different identities," and may even diminish the freedom of the majority to satisfy the freedom of a minority in practice.
This helps explain why today some subjects of identity politics movements are not satisfied with being treated equally, but instead constantly force mainstream society to recognize the unique characteristics that make them different, so that they can strive for narrow interests by means of "refined identities" [3] when necessary. Take Asian Americans as an example: this group always seeks to maximize the interests of small sub-groups within the existing American racial system. They no longer pursue the expansion of the common interests of all ethnic groups, but merely attempt to redistribute existing interests in a manner favorable to their own ethnic group. This causes the already fragile pan-ethnic identity to further rupture under the struggle for interests. This illustrates that the inherent contradictions of the differentiation mechanism in identity politics have caused narrow group interests to replace the collective interest of resisting social injustice as the primary goal for subjects joining political movements. This leads to a more fragmented society of "identity tribalism," which is undoubtedly a fatal blow to the Western Left, which hopes to strengthen anti-capitalist forces by absorbing various identities.
Fourth, the struggle philosophy of the identity politics-dominated Leftist movement—aimed at cultural pluralism and equality—can no longer resonate with the masses. This is equivalent to allowing right-wing forces to "steal" the Left's own issues.
After the 2008 international financial crisis, the myth of continuous capitalist economic prosperity was shattered. The economic conditions of the lower-middle-class whites, the mainstream group in the West, have deteriorated daily; in some cases, their situation is even worse than that of poor ethnic minorities. In the United States, for instance, the worsening economic situation has crushed the "American Dream" of class upward mobility for mainstream whites, triggering identity crises and racial resentment. This prompts them to view issues of unemployment and the wealth gap through the "colored lenses" of racism, gradually evolving into a "racialized economics." In the eyes of these whites, those minority marginalized groups who benefit from identity politics are all "line-cutters" who take away their own development opportunities. Meanwhile, they—the hardworking, tax-paying whites—have become an "aggrieved group" in the waves of economic globalization and social diversification, possessing neither a sense of belonging nor being valued. In this context, when the Leftist camp launches political movements based solely on the identities and interests of marginalized groups, directing their spearhead at the lower-middle-class whites who are equally harmed by the parasitic accumulation of financial capital, they not only fail to eliminate the inequalities of capitalist society but further exacerbate the contradictions between grassroots people of different skin colors. Take "Dallas Justice Now" as an example: this Black organization once publicly demanded that white people pledge not to send their children to top-50 Ivy League schools, but rather give those enrollment spots to people of color to "make a sacrifice" for correcting historical racist wrongs. This practice, which clearly exceeds the boundaries of equal rights, greatly hurt the feelings of the white masses and only deepened their resentment toward the Leftist camp.
This shows that in a crisis era where financial capital severely infringes upon the material interests of the populace, the Western Left’s method of struggle—abandoning resistance against capitalist oppression in favor of using identity politics to pursue so-called equal rights or preferential treatment—has caused ordinary white people, who should have been united, to be continuously pushed in the wrong direction of right-wing populism. This, in turn, weakens the Left's own power.
III. "Unconscious Tools": Reflections on the Dilemma of Leftist Identity Politics
As can be seen from the above, the contemporary Western Left's use of identity politics to resist capitalist oppression is not so much an expansion of the forms of leftist resistance as it is a deconstruction of them. This mode of struggle does not resolve the class issue through a new political form; rather, it dissolves the issue entirely. Consequently, the fact that "one class exercises unrestricted despotic rule over other classes" in capitalist society is completely shielded from the horizons of identity politics once this transition is complete. This represents not only a loss of the true enemy and the correct direction, but moreover a betrayal of the working class and its profound spirit of struggle. This point alone confirms the essence of identity politics as being "Left in form but Right in essence" [4]. It also portends that an obsession with identity politics will only cause the leftist movement to drift further down the wrong path, eventually degenerating into an "unconscious tool" for consolidating contemporary capitalist rule.
First, the total negation of the category of "class" renders identity politics unable to perceive the class inequalities hidden behind the chaotic surface of identity conflicts. This inevitably makes it difficult for the leftist movements it leads to unite true friends in order to attack the real enemy.
As Adolph Reed Jr. noted, whenever racial difference is used as a lens to observe inequality in American society, the worsening inequality caused by the American capitalist system and class rule is obscured. By negating the Marxist category of class and the analytical perspective of the relations of production, identity politics perceives the systemic oppression of capitalist society solely from an identity-based or cultural perspective (for instance, viewing "white male hegemony" as the primary enemy). Therefore, it fails to see the critical economic fact that lower- and middle-class whites are equally objects of capitalist oppression. Furthermore, it cannot understand that the surging identity crises and populist sentiments among white populations since the 21st century are, in essence, ideological reflections of their deteriorating material living conditions. Consequently, identity politics always reductively understands right-wing populism as a new resurgence of white racism, and misinterprets the "economic/class gambit" triggered by the crisis of contemporary capitalism as an "identity/cultural conflict." In the horizon of identity politics, society is not divided horizontally into the two great productive classes of capitalists and proletarians, but is instead divided vertically into numerous "identities" such as Black people, women, and sexual minorities. Through this division, the bourgeois ruling elite can skillfully hide behind various identities, becoming merely one of many factors causing inequality. They need only strike a tolerant pose of respecting diverse identities to easily "whitewash" themselves, and even transform into promoters of the cause of democratic progress.
The most direct consequence of this misjudgment is that the Western leftist camp has completely lost sight of the working class's true enemy: capitalism itself. It is clearly visible in reality that while some contemporary leftists correctly criticize retrograde and reactionary ideologies like "white supremacy" and "racism" when mobilizing marginalized groups against systemic oppression from the mainstream, they simultaneously forget the reasonable material interests of lower- and middle-class whites hidden behind these ideologies. They forget that such interests are the banner under which the most resolute struggle against capitalism is waged. Thus, they erroneously point the spearhead—which should be aimed at the financial oligarchy—at lower- and middle-class whites who occupy a similarly oppressed position within capitalist relations of production. This ultimately pushes the lower- and middle-white classes, who should be united as a basic revolutionary force, toward the opposition. This is why the more vigorously leftist identity politics has been carried out in recent years, the more Western masses represented by lower- and middle-class whites have tended to bind themselves to right-wing forces, leaving the leftist camp increasingly isolated. This also means that as long as large numbers of white people suffer through economic hardship and grow weary of leftist political discourse, if the Western Left continues to adhere to the reductive cognitive model of identity politics that divides friend from foe by "skin color," it will remain unable to seize the true enemy—the power of capital—hidden behind identity conflicts. It will be even less able to activate the anti-capitalist revolutionary potential latent within the broad lower- and middle-class white population, thereby bringing new uncertainties to the cause of revitalizing the contemporary Western leftist movement.
Second, an excessive reliance on cultural struggle causes identity politics to disregard the people’s demands for real material interests. This inevitably causes the leftist movement it leads to deviate from the correct direction of struggle, leading to a loss of appeal among the general public.
On the one hand, because they do not understand that various identity conflicts are essentially derivatives of socio-economic inequality in capitalist society, and do not understand that demands for real material interests often override value beliefs or cultural identities to become the deep logic regulating political behavior, identity politics is indifferent to the obvious economic fact that the material interests of the grassroots are being harmed by finance capital. Instead, it overstates the role of cultural critique in resisting capitalist oppression, even placing its hopes on attracting the masses to the anti-capitalist struggle through hollow values or specific identity recognitions. Unfortunately, "once 'thought' leaves 'interest,' it will surely make a fool of itself" [5]. This "unity in idea" constructed out of values cannot escape the entanglement of material interests. Not only is it difficult for it to effectively respond to the real material interests of concern to the grassroots—especially lower- and middle-class whites—but it also shifts the focus of struggle from eliminating socio-economic inequality to the false goals of seeking cultural pluralism and equality. This is why, in an era where the people's material interests are deeply harmed by finance capital, even as leftists vigorously promote identity politics, the Western leftist movement remains unable to reverse its current decline, while helplessly watching mass movements be hijacked by the bourgeois Right toward the wrong path of populism.
On the other hand, identity politics attempts to oppose capitalism through individual identity recognition, "revolutions of self-consciousness," critiques of daily life, and performative unconventionality, all while remaining detached from actual economic relations. This essentially shifts the goal of the struggle from the elimination of capitalism to coexistence with it. This is because these so-called cultural or ideological revolutions share the same theoretical premise as capitalist ideology: they set the social subject as an isolated "individual" detached from real relations of production, and this "individual" only achieves the harmonious unity of physical life, emotional will, and free personality at an abstract level. While this politics emphasizes the specificity and comprehensiveness of the "individual" and the fullness of "individual life," it forgets the concrete and historical nature of the "individual" who exists within certain relations of production at every moment. Furthermore, it ignores that economic emancipation is "universal human emancipation" [6] in the truest sense. For this reason, when the current identity-politics-led leftist movement faces systemic capitalist oppression, it does not seek to liberate people from the shackles of capitalist relations of production, but merely pursues a critique of self-consciousness and daily life, as well as an abstract freedom and liberation of personality. Although such political movements appear radical, they are ultimately only subjectivist struggles and aesthetic political performances confined to the margins of society, utterly insufficient to shake the ruling foundations of contemporary capitalism.
Third, the total abandonment of revolutionary action and party politics based on class identity leads to the increasing fragmentation of the modes of struggle in identity politics. This inevitably prevents the leftist movements it leads from gathering the holistic force necessary to shake the capitalist system.
The subject currently ruling Western society is finance capital, which secretly penetrates the economic, political, and social spheres by manipulating currency issuance, debt structures, securities, and real estate markets. This social reality dictates not only that "decentralized" struggles launched around differentiated identity recognition are insufficient to shake the comprehensive rule of contemporary finance capital, but also that the revolutionary subject can only be a coalition formed by the laboring class under the conditions of large-scale socialized production. However, by negating unified class action, identity politics is clearly unable to shoulder the great mission of uniting the laboring class.
On the one hand, while identity politics can more clearly reveal the alienation caused by capital to micro-individuals by focusing on individual existence—compensating to some extent for the "grand narrative" of class politics, which may fail to sufficiently care for individual conditions—this micro-narrative inevitably depicts modern society as a fragmented picture. This obscures the systemic dominance of finance capital over modern social life, rendering identity politics blind to the class essence of social producers as associated laborers, as well as to the logic, power, and hope inherent in their collective action. For this reason, identity politics merely pushes individual critique to an extreme, stimulating an "oppressed consciousness" in isolated individuals by exaggerating the degree of individual oppression, and subsequently mobilizing them to launch fragmented movements under the calling of this illusory "oppressed identity" to struggle against the entire capitalist world. In reality, however, these rebellious actions based on isolated individuals have never posed a substantial threat to the foundations of capitalist rule as identity politics intended. What identity politics loses in its radical rhetoric is precisely the critical fact that individuals are linked by capital into socially associated laborers, and precisely the capacity and potential to transform the capitalist system that only the association of laborers possesses.
On the other hand, the strategy of identity politics to replace "class" with "identity" as the basis for political mobilization likewise exposes its fatal flaw of ignoring the decisive role of economic factors. When conducting political mobilization, identity politics fails to understand that the fundamental cause of extreme inequality in capitalist society is not a dispute over values, but injustice in the distribution of material interests. It also fails to see that the fundamental reason identities differ, shift, or subdivide is that behind them "all carry special, narrow, and thus mutually isolated economic interests." This causes subjects mobilized through culture or identity to have huge divergences in the formation of discourse, the defense of culture and identity, the pursuit of goals, and the means of implementation. Therefore, the identity recognition mechanism on which the leftist camp pins its hopes can at most construct an illusory coalition at the conceptual level; the moment it encounters the challenge of material interests in reality, it immediately disintegrates. This demonstrates that political movements that negate class identity and ignore the people’s demands for material interests cannot gather the holistic force to transform the capitalist system and are thus destined for failure.
Conclusion
To be sure, in the Western societies of the post-industrial era where the leftist spirit has waned and class politics has declined, identity politics has been able to successfully reveal new problems and contradictions of capitalist society with keen contemporary insight. By "identitarian-izing" politics, it has successfully mobilized marginalized minority groups within Western nations to resist the vested interests and discourse hegemony of mainstream groups, thereby pushing forward the cause of social equality under capitalism for a time. Its historical progressive significance is obvious. However, because it has abandoned class politics and the demand for the transformation of the economic base, this leftist movement—which aims for the equalization of identities—still attempts to replace "material interests" with "cultural rights" and "real economic emancipation" with abstract "liberation of self-consciousness" in the face of economic facts where material interests are being harmed by capital and unequal social relations urgently need change. This inevitably makes it an "unconscious tool" for strengthening the power of capital. Of particular concern is that, as identity politics has been carried out in full swing, resentment among the Western masses toward the leftist camp has grown daily in recent years, with more and more people even beginning to throw themselves into the embrace of right-wing forces. This is undoubtedly a massive blow to a leftist camp that hopes to revitalize anti-capitalist forces by emphasizing identity recognition or a consensus on values.
Regrettably, just as Western politicians are keen on performing "political correctness," many contemporary Western leftist theorists conduct their reflections on identity politics and its associated right-wing populism as academic critiques sheltered under the roof of the capitalist state. Though these theories may seem radical and righteous, as long as their reflections on identity politics do not aim at transforming capitalist relations of production, and as long as they remain indifferent to the disastrous consequences that the capitalist mode of production brings to the material interests of ordinary people (including lower- and middle-class whites), their theories remain nothing more than discursive tools that provide a disguised defense for contemporary capitalist rule. The various new types of anti-capitalist movements on which they pin their hopes will still be unable to escape the fate of being co-opted by capitalism.
In summary, identity politics represents a strategic choice made by the Western Left in the post-industrial era. While they hope to pursue equality, they remain unable to break through the existing framework of capitalism. This approach not only fails to realistically transform the various forms of inequality triggered by economic inequality under capitalist conditions, but instead continuously leads the Western leftist movement down a path of no return—one that deviates from socialist ideals and the interests of the working class. Consequently, it is difficult for identity politics to lead the contemporary Western leftist movement in truly breaking free from its historical predicament.
In sharp contrast, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a New Era, marking a moment where scientific socialism in 21st-century China is demonstrating unprecedented vigor and vitality. This historical process fully demonstrates that China is precisely the key force leading the world socialist movement out of its historical predicament and driving the resurgence of scientific socialism in the 21st century. Therefore, we have a responsibility to remain unswerving in our adherence to the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, to finish building China into a great modern socialist country in all respects, and to achieve the Second Centenary Goal [7]. Through the superiority of the socialist system and new achievements in socialist construction, we shall contribute Chinese strength to the resurgence of world socialism.
(Author Profile: Chen Yuntao is an Associate Professor at the School of Marxism, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences) Online Editor: Tongxin Source: Marxism Studies (Mǎkèsīzhǔyì Yánjiū), Issue 1, 2025.