Chen Yuntao: An Assessment of the Impact 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 figures on the Western Left have drawn inspiration from liberal values such as multiculturalism. They began to adopt identity politics (1) as a developmental strategy to break through the impasse of leftist movements. Under their guidance and promotion, identity politics has now evolved into a significant force within the contemporary Western Left. However, this identity politics—obsessed with rights based on difference, cultural parity, and fragmented struggles—has in its subsequent development actually undermined leftist political ideals. It has not only seriously weakened the strength of the Left itself but has also fostered 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 been 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, it is urgent to use the standpoint, viewpoints, and methods of Marxism to re-examine the practical consequences of the Western leftist movement dominated by identity politics. We must conduct a deep analysis of the actual impact identity politics has had on the Western Left and the profound underlying reasons. This is of great significance for further understanding and observing the future trends of the Western Left, and for reflecting on how to better promote the rejuvenation of world socialism in the 21st century.
I. Mobilizing Politics through Identity: A Typical Strategy of the Contemporary Western Leftist Movement
As a developmental strategy adopted by the Western Left in the post-industrial era to break through its predicament, identity politics primarily constructs its discursive forms and carries out political mobilization around the issue of "identity." At the same time, it takes the realization of pluralistic demands 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" (2) 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 several typical characteristics.
First, it no longer regards the working class as the sole subject of anti-capitalist struggle, but instead incorporates the diverse identities suffering from various forms of oppression within capitalist society into the scope of political movement subjects.
As improvements in material living standards and welfare benefits in the post-industrial era weakened the revolutionary nature of the working class, some Western leftist theorists began to deny the foundational status of the "class" category in anti-capitalist movements. They concluded that the working class in capitalist countries had become institutionalized. From their perspective, on the one hand, the antagonism between workers and capitalists does not arise from within capitalist relations of production, but rather between "the relations of production and the identity of the social agents (including workers)" (3). This means that only when workers view capitalism as a social relationship that negates their identity, hinders the realization of their potential, and obstructs the construction of an ideal society, does the antagonism between labor and capital become real, and workers thereby acquire revolutionary consciousness. However, the post-industrial working class has clearly ceased to view capitalist relations of production as antagonistic due to affluent living conditions, which inevitably leads to the loss of its status as the revolutionary subject.
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" (4). In such a society, "diversity and difference have dissolved all old certainties and universalities" (5), and the original identical class "has splintered into pieces" (6). Meanwhile, differentiated and pluralistic identity recognitions emerge within the cracks of class. Since groups with different identities have their own special interests and methods of struggle, this inevitably causes political struggle methods to trend toward diversification. This means that in modern capitalist society, where struggle is becoming increasingly complex and pluralistic, the category of "class" has not completely exited the stage, but has been transformed into one of the multiple identities of the subject. Consequently, class struggle is merely one form of identity politics and "has become increasingly unimportant in the contemporary world" (7).
It is precisely based on these understandings that these leftist figures 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" (8). They believe that by granting the status of revolutionary subjects to "identities" based 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. They aim to unite all people in capitalist society who suffer from systemic oppression across party lines and classes, 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. Their conflicting identity was the "1% of financial oligarchs" (9). Another example is the "Global Climate Strikes" movement that swept through many Western countries in September 2019. Although its main participants were secondary school and university students, it also attempted to broaden its scope of mobilization through the wider identity of "everyone," successfully attracting some companies to join the business strikes. This indicates 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 pay closer attention to 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 is instead committed to pursuing liberation in daily life or self-consciousness through cultural critique.
As the manifestations of social conflict in post-industrial capitalist society shifted from class conflicts over material interests to identity conflicts over equal rights and recognition, identity inequalities such as race, gender, and sexual orientation replaced class inequality as the issues of greatest concern to the general public. In response, some leftist figures began to question the decisive role of the economic base in the social structure. They tended to believe that interest conflicts in advanced capitalist societies no longer involve the field of production where surplus value is appropriated, but have shifted to the fields of daily life and consumption outside of work. In their view, the unfair treatment encountered by members of advanced capitalist society does not stem from specific economic relations and political systems, but from "discrimination and injury from the perspective of the 'Other'" in daily life (10). In this context, the primary goal of resisting capitalist oppression must shift from achieving economic equality to achieving pluralistic equality in culture or identity. The cultural sphere, which carries the perspective of the "Other" and is thus highly politicized, has become the "zone of struggle" for marginalized people to resist capitalist oppression. Taking the "Black Cultural Renaissance" 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 and displaying clothing and hairstyles with racial characteristics. They hoped that by emphasizing Black racial culture or identity, they could demand status equality and cultural recognition from the mainstream group to counter the systemic oppression of capitalist society (11).
Today, under the influence of postmodernism, this 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; on the artistic practice of technology, politics, and life; and merely pursues the liberation of individual personality and desire in the realm of daily life (12). From this, it is evident that the goal of contemporary Western leftist identity politics is no longer solely to protect workers' material interests or achieve economic liberation, but to pursue the recognition of differentiated identities and respect for specific cultural values, as well as the liberation of personality and desire, and liberation in the sensory and aesthetic fields.
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-defined goals.
The historical transformation of the working class from a revolutionary subject into a socially marginalized group has also profoundly influenced the view of social revolution held by some leftist figures. In their view, the nature of social revolution in the post-industrial era has undergone a fundamental change: from a movement of necessity in the historical process to a mere setting of contingency. The purpose of revolution is no longer a profound manifestation of historical mission and historical laws, but—due to a lack of long-term planning—is focused only on immediate, individual, and contingent goals. Correspondingly, the internal driving force of revolution has shifted from the original class collective will and action to the individual’s continuous and consistent denial and subversion of the existing order at cultural and psychological levels. This shift in the view of revolution has further triggered a turn in the view of practice, causing these leftists to shift their focus from the systemic oppression of capitalism to the existential state of the individual subject. Thus, holistic, organized, and necessary movements aimed at class struggle and wealth redistribution are abandoned, replaced by isolated individuals fighting alone against the entire capitalist world.
Furthermore, this mode of political struggle pushes individualism to the extreme. It emphasizes examining the power structure of capitalist society from the perspective of differentiated and individualized identities. Every participating individual is endowed with uniqueness and difference distinct 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 leadership core, a clear program of struggle, or a tight political organization; from beginning to end, they fight their own battles within capitalist society using a "decentralized" action model (13). The participating subjects of these movements constantly attempt to establish and strengthen the status of identity difference, using multicultural power at the micro level to resist the totalizing power structure, in pursuit of equal rights in cultural identity or value choices. In this process, a flat organizational structure, rather than a vertical power system, has become the most distinct characteristic of such political movements.
II. Running Counter to the Goal: The Practical Predicament of the Contemporary Leftist Identity Politics Movement
Although launching identity politics seemed to bring a glimmer of hope for revitalizing the Western leftist movement in its decline, and once pushed the leftist cause against capitalist oppression forward, the practical consequences and developmental trends of the contemporary Western leftist movement suggest otherwise. Identity politics has not truly led the Western Left out of its historical predicament. Instead, in the 21st century—characterized by frequent capitalist crises and the return of economic issues to the center of political movements—it has further deepened the Western Left's predicament at the level of practice. This result is clearly the opposite of the original vision for rejuvenating the leftist movement.
First, the leftist movement dominated by identity politics one-sidedly emphasizes equality and pluralism in identity or culture while ignoring the factually existing class inequality in capitalist society. This is equivalent to a disguised recognition of the legitimacy of capitalist rule.
In the vista of identity politics, while capitalist society contains inequalities of one kind or another, 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" [18]. Consequently, the resistance this form of politics offers against capitalism actually drifts outside of class relations. At the same time, as the bourgeoisie continuously releases so-called modern and 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 [5], particularly the power of financial capital, wherein "the former endows the latter with greater charismatic appeal" [19]. This elitism, whitewashed 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 that of being "for neoliberalism" [20]. 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 advancement within the capitalist system. Leftist politics has thoroughly degenerated from a radical politics—which originally promoted social equality by highlighting difference and emphasizing recognition—into a "performance politics" of abstract aesthetic significance, divorced from anti-capitalist oppression.
As a successful case of a marginalized individual joining the cultural elite, the rapid rise of the Black American writer Ta-Nehisi Coates in the literary world in recent years has benefited precisely from catering to the discourse of identity politics [21]. However, as the Black American democratic activist Cornel West aptly criticized, Coates, as a representative figure of the American neoliberal camp, owes the secret of his rise to the clever exploitation of the "crocodile tears" of neoliberals who are unwilling to share power or relinquish privilege. His narrow racial tribalism and shortsighted political neoliberalism do not touch upon the greed of Wall Street, the many evils of the American empire, or the Black elite’s disregard for the problem of poverty [22]. More seriously, this increasingly decadent Leftist discourse is now being utilized by the bourgeois ruling elite to simplify complex socio-economic problems into differences of ethnic identity, further forging them into political tools to deceive voters. Taking the US Democratic Party—which is most adept at this—as an example: shortly after the 2020 George Floyd incident, Democratic politicians such as Biden and Pelosi staged "kneeling" performances [23] to secure the support of Black voters. During the 2024 US election, while campaigning for Democratic presidential candidate Harris, former President Obama used identity politics rhetoric to engage in 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 accusations at Black men who did not support Harris: "You just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president" [24]. Clearly, these political manipulations by Democratic politicians avoid the class roots behind racial inequality and cannot change the plight of disadvantaged groups. Regrettably, the contemporary American Left not only does nothing about this but instead "is politically willing to act as the 'little tail' of the Democratic Party’s 'donkey' (the party emblem)" [25]. As Mark Lilla criticized, although identity politics can make American society more inclusive and marginalized groups more visible, its reverse logic has caused American politics to atrophy into a "Pseudo-Politics" of self-expression. It works hand in glove with neoliberalism to jointly foster a cultural atmosphere of sophisticated egoism [26].
This also indicates that the "de-classed" struggle method of identity politics has led the Western Leftist movement down a path of fragmented cultural reformism. This not only fails to deliver any substantial impact on the capitalist system but instead allows Western Leftist values to reach a subtle consensus with the logic of capital, even causing the developmental logic of contemporary Western Leftist movements to be distorted into a manifestation of the ruling logic of contemporary capitalism.
Second, the Leftist movement dominated by identity politics focuses on a "victimhood politics" that constantly ignites identity conflicts and value oppositions in society, which is equivalent to placing obstacles in the way of the masses uniting into an integrated anti-capitalist force. Today’s identity politics is deeply influenced by the principle that "the personal is political." It emphasizes the absorption and politicization of the unique victimhood experiences of individual subjects in capitalist society, making the subject’s identity construction increasingly dependent on "affective solidarity" formed through shared victimhood. This has caused Western Leftist politics to increasingly degenerate into a "victimhood politics." However, the premise of mobilizing politics by constructing 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 identity construction by intensifying one's own experience of pain, rather than eliminating the root cause of that pain. Consequently, although the victim experience is emphasized, the social roots that trigger inequality are never substantially criticized. Simultaneously, the emergence of a "victimhood politics" born out of painful experiences actually deepens the alienation between different groups. It no longer aspires to equality of rights and human liberation, nor is it satisfied with gaining respect and recognition from mainstream society; instead, it constantly emphasizes the relationship of oppression and being oppressed between minority marginalized groups and mainstream society, hoping to establish a reverse "hierarchy of victimhood" [27] in society. Under this system, the more symbols of "victim identity" one possesses, the more one can "play the misery card" to demand privileges.
From this, it can be seen that the "victimhood complex" is essentially the narcissistic logic of the bourgeois elite. It only amplifies the self-interested individual rationality within civil society, "restricting political movements to the social margins and placing them at risk of regressing into narcissism, hedonism, aestheticism, or personal therapy" [28]. 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 into an integrated anti-capitalist force have become increasingly prominent, the Western Leftist movement dominated by identity politics has instead become a stumbling block to this historical process.
Third, the Western Leftist movement dominated by identity politics follows a mechanism of differentiated identification. In practice, this causes narrow group interests to replace the overall interests of society as the primary goal of the movement, which 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 their own group, and this identification provides the kinetic energy for identity politics movements [29]. Under the dominance of differentiated identity recognition, the principle of individuality is pushed to the extreme. Every participant in identity politics movements highlights their own distinct uniqueness and clear differentiation from "the other," thereby facilitating the construction of a specific identity. However, this sense of identity and belonging is actually rooted in the imagination and possesses subjective arbitrariness. Therefore, the differences between different identities are not fixed, and new identities are continuously constructed through the emphasis on these differences. This dictates that constructing a specific identity recognition is insufficient to counter the fluidity of postmodern social values, nor can it restabilize intimate connections between people in a postmodern context of increasing interpersonal alienation; instead, it causes identity to shift frequently as the subject's attention moves.
More importantly, because different subjects in fact possess pluralistic interest demands, it is inevitable that a subject’s identity identification will change along with their interest demands. Ultimately, this leads subjects to take the pursuit of "differentiated identity" as the purpose of the movement itself. Influenced by this, contemporary Western Leftist identity politics no longer values power relations of oppression or institutional structures; instead, it emphasizes the freedom of lifestyle differences, as if all different differences possess equal political significance. It "extremely emphasizes the importance of a particular identity while remaining indifferent to the socio-political ethics that link different identities" [30], and may even diminish the freedom of the majority in practice to satisfy the freedom of a minority.
Thus, it becomes clear why some subjects of identity politics today are not satisfied with being treated equally, but instead constantly force mainstream society to recognize the distinctive characteristics that make them different, so that they can use "refined identities" (identity granularity) to fight for narrow interests when necessary. Taking Asian Americans as an example, this group frequently seeks to maximize the interests of small sub-ethnic 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 group. This causes a pan-ethnic identity that was already fragile to fracture further under the struggle for interests [31]. This demonstrates that the internal contradictions of the differentiation mechanism in identity politics have caused narrow group interests to replace the overall interest of resisting social injustice as the primary goal for subjects joining political movements, leading to a more fragmented society of "identity tribalism." For a Western Left that hopes to strengthen anti-capitalist forces by absorbing various identities, this is undoubtedly a fatal blow.
Fourth, the struggle concepts of the Leftist movement dominated by identity politics—with cultural pluralism and equality as their goals—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-and-middle-class whites, who constitute the mainstream group in the West, have moved from bad to worse; some are even in a more dire situation than poor ethnic minorities. In the United States, for instance, deteriorating economic conditions crushed the "American Dream" of class advancement for mainstream whites, triggering identity crises and racial resentment. This prompted them to view issues of unemployment and the wealth gap through the "colored lens" of racism, gradually evolving into a "racialized economics." In the eyes of these whites, the minority marginalized groups who benefit from identity politics are all "line-jumpers" [32] who steal their development opportunities. Meanwhile, they—the hardworking, tax-paying whites—have become a "victim group" (aggrieved group) in the tide of economic globalization and social diversification, possessing neither a sense of belonging nor being valued [33]. In this context, if the Leftist camp launches political movements based solely on the identities and interests of marginalized groups, directing the spearhead at lower-and-middle-class whites who are similarly harmed by the parasitic accumulation of financial capital, it will not only fail to eliminate inequality in capitalist society but will further intensify the contradictions among the common people of different skin colors. For example, "Dallas Justice Now," a Black organization, once publicly demanded that white people pledge not to send their children to top-50 Ivy League schools, but instead relinquish these spots to people of color to "make a sacrifice" for correcting historical racist wrongs [34]. This practice, which clearly exceeds the boundaries of equal rights, greatly hurts the feelings of white citizens and only deepens their resentment toward the Leftist camp.
This indicates that in an era of crisis where financial capital severely infringes upon the material interests of the masses, the Western Left’s method of struggle—abandoning resistance to capitalist oppression in favor of pursuing so-called equal rights or preferential treatment through identity politics—has caused ordinary white citizens, who should have been united, to be pushed toward the erroneous direction of right-wing populism. This, in turn, weakens the strength of the Left itself.
III. "Unconscious Tools": Reflections on the Dilemma of Leftist Identity Politics
From the above, it can be seen that the use of identity politics by contemporary Western leftist groups to resist capitalist oppression is less an expansion of the forms of leftist resistance than it is a deconstruction of them. This mode of struggle does not resolve the class question through a new political form but rather dissolves the question itself. Consequently, the fact that in capitalist society "one class exercises unrestricted despotic rule over other classes" [41] is completely screened out of the horizon of identity politics once this transition is complete. This represents not only a loss of the true enemy and the correct direction, but more importantly, 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" [42]. It also foreshadows that an obsession with identity politics will only cause the leftist movement to drift further away in the wrong direction, eventually becoming an "unconscious tool" for consolidating contemporary capitalist rule.
First, the total negation of the category of "class" prevents identity politics from seeing through the class inequality concealed by 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 true enemy.
As Adolph Reed Jr. noted: "Whenever racial disparity is used as the lens to view inequality in American society, the deepening inequality caused by the American capitalist system and class rule is obscured" [43]. By negating the Marxist category of class and the analytical perspective of relations of production, identity politics perceives the systemic oppression of capitalist society solely from an identity or cultural perspective (for instance, viewing "white male hegemony" as the primary enemy). Therefore, it fails to see the crucial economic fact that the lower and middle strata of the white population are equally subjects of capitalist oppression. Furthermore, it cannot understand that the surging identity crisis and populist sentiment among white groups since the 21st century are essentially conceptual reflections of their deteriorating material living conditions. Consequently, identity politics always one-dimensionally interprets right-wing populism as a new resurgence of white racism, and incorrectly understands the "economic/class game" triggered by the crisis of contemporary capitalism as an "identity/cultural conflict." Within the horizon of identity politics, society is not horizontally divided into the two great "classes" of capitalists and proletarians, but is vertically divided into numerous "identities" such as Black people, women, and sexual minorities. Through this division, the ruling elite of the bourgeoisie can skillfully hide among various identities, becoming merely one of many factors causing inequality. As long as they strike a tolerant pose of respecting diverse identities, they can 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 true enemy of the working class: capitalism. In reality, it is clearly observable that when some leftists currently incite marginalized groups to resist systemic oppression from mainstream society, although they correctly criticize backward and reactionary ideologies like "white supremacy" and "racism," they simultaneously forget that hidden behind these ideologies are the legitimate material interests and demands of lower- and middle-class whites. They forget that such demands ought to be the banner for the most resolute struggle against capitalism. Consequently, they often mistakenly direct the spearhead—which should be aimed at the financial oligarchy—at the lower and middle-class whites who are equally oppressed within capitalist relations of production. This ultimately pushes the lower and middle-class whites, who should be united as the basic force of revolution, toward the opposite side. This is why, in recent years, the more vigorously leftist identity politics is carried out, the more the Western masses represented by lower- and middle-class whites tend to align with right-wing forces, leaving the leftist camp increasingly isolated. This also means that against the current backdrop of large numbers of white people suffering from economic hardship and becoming increasingly weary of leftist political discourse, if the Western Left continues to cling to the one-dimensional cognitive model of identity politics that defines friends and enemies by "skin color," it will be unable to grasp the true enemy—the power of capital hidden behind identity conflicts. Moreover, it will fail to activate the revolutionary potential for opposing capitalism latent within the broad masses of lower- and middle-class whites, thereby bringing new uncertainties to the revitalization of the contemporary Western leftist movement.
Second, an excessive reliance on cultural struggle causes identity politics to disregard the people's demands for actual material interests. This inevitably leads the leftist movement it leads to deviate from the correct direction of struggle, thereby losing its appeal to the general public.
On the one hand, because it fails to understand that diverse identity conflicts are essentially derivatives of socio-economic inequality in capitalist society, and fails to understand that people's demands for real material interests often override their value beliefs or cultural identities to become the deep logic regulating their political behavior, identity politics is not only indifferent to the obvious economic fact that the material interests of the grassroots are being harmed by financial capital, but instead unilaterally exaggerates the role of cultural critique in resisting capitalist oppression. It even places its hopes on attracting the masses to participate in the struggle against capitalism through hollow value concepts or specific identity labels. Unfortunately, "'ideas' always disgrace themselves insofar as they differ from 'interests'" [44]. This "unity in patterns of thought" constructed on value concepts cannot escape the entanglement of material interests. Not only does it struggle to respond effectively to the real material interest issues that concern the grassroots—especially lower- and middle-class whites—but it also shifts the focus of struggle from eliminating socio-economic inequality in capitalism to the false goal of seeking multiculturalism and equality. This is why in an era where the material interests of the masses are deeply harmed by financial capital, despite leftist efforts to promote identity politics, the Western leftist movement remains unable to reverse its current decline. Instead, it can only watch as mass movements are coerced by the bourgeois Right into the erroneous direction of populism [45].
On the other hand, identity politics attempts to oppose capitalism through individual self-identity, a "revolution of self-consciousness," critiques of daily life, and performative non-conformity, all while being detached from real economic relations. This essentially shifts the goal of struggle from the abolition of capitalism to coexistence with it. This is because these so-called cultural or ideological revolutions share the same theoretical premises as capitalist ideology: they posit the social subject as an "individual" secluded from real relations of production, and this "individual" achieves the perfect unity of physical life, emotional will, and free personality only at an abstract level. Although this politics emphasizes the specificity and comprehensiveness of the "individual" and the fullness and integrity of "individual life," it forgets the specificity and historicity of the fact that the "individual" exists within certain relations of production at every moment. Furthermore, it ignores that economic emancipation is "universal human emancipation" in the true sense. Therefore, when facing systemic capitalist oppression, the current leftist movement dominated by identity politics 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 subjective struggles lingering on the margins of society and political performances of merely aesthetic significance, wholly insufficient to shake the ruling foundations of contemporary capitalism.
Third, the total abandonment of revolutionary action and party politics based on class identity causes the modes of struggle in identity politics to become increasingly fragmented. This inevitably results in the inability of the leftist movements it leads to genuinely aggregate an integral force sufficient to shake the capitalist system.
Today, the subject ruling Western society is financial capital, which covertly 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 financial capital over Western society, but also that the revolutionary subject can only be an association constructed by the laboring class under the conditions of large-scale socialized production. However, identity politics, having negated unified class action, is clearly unable to undertake the great mission of uniting the laboring class.
On the one hand, although identity politics can more clearly reveal the alienation caused by capital to micro-individuals by focusing on individual existential states—partially compensating for the deficiency of the grand narrative of class politics in attending to individual conditions—this micro-narrative inevitably depicts modern society as a fragmented picture. Consequently, it obscures the systemic dominance of financial capital over modern social life, preventing identity politics from seeing the class essence of social producers as associated laborers, as well as the logic, power, and hope inherent in their collective action. Therefore, identity politics merely pushes individual critique to an extreme, stimulating an "oppression consciousness" in isolated individuals by exaggerating the degree of individual oppression, and then mobilizing them—under the call of this illusory "oppressed identity"—to launch fragmented movements against the entire capitalist world. However, in reality, it is clear that these acts of rebellion based on isolated individuals have never posed a substantive threat to the foundations of capitalist rule as identity politics desired. What identity politics loses in its radical rhetoric is precisely the vital fact that individuals are linked by capital into social associated laborers, and precisely the capacity and potential for transforming the capitalist system that only the association of laborers possesses.
On the other hand, the development strategy of identity politics—replacing "class" with "identity" as the basis for political mobilization—similarly exposes its fatal flaw of ignoring the decisive role of economic factors. In carrying out political mobilization, identity politics fails to understand that the fundamental reason for extreme inequality in capitalist society lies not in disputes over value concepts, but in the injustice of the distribution of material interests. It further fails to see that the fundamental reason why the identities of different subjects differ, or are constantly changing and subdividing, is that behind them, they "all carry special, narrow, and thus mutually isolated economic interests" [46]. This causes significant divergences among subjects mobilized by culture or identity in terms of the formation of discourse, the defense of culture and identity, the pursuit of goals, and the means of implementation. Therefore, the identity mechanism upon which the leftist camp places high hopes can, at most, construct an illusory association at the conceptual level; it will immediately disintegrate once it encounters challenges of material interests in reality. This indicates that political movements that negate class identity and ignore the people's demands for material interests cannot aggregate the integral force to transform the capitalist system, and are thus destined to fail.
Conclusion
To be sure, in the post-industrial Western society marked by the decline of the leftist spirit and the waning of class politics, identity politics has successfully used its keen insight to reveal new problems and contradictions in capitalist society. By "identifying" politics, it has successfully mobilized small marginalized groups within Western countries to resist the vested interests and discourse hegemony of mainstream groups, for a time pushing forward the cause of social equality under capitalism; its historical progressiveness is evident. 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 substitute "cultural rights" for "material interests" and abstract "emancipation of self-consciousness" for real "economic emancipation of the human being" in the face of the economic fact that the material interests of the masses are being harmed by capital and that unequal social relations urgently need to be changed. This inevitably causes it to become an "unconscious tool" for strengthening the power of capital. Of particular concern is that as identity politics has been carried out vigorously, the resentment of the Western masses toward the leftist camp has grown in recent years, with more and more people even beginning to throw themselves into the arms of right-wing forces. This is undoubtedly a huge blow to a leftist camp that hopes to revitalize anti-capitalist forces by emphasizing identity recognition or a consensus on values.
Regrettably, much like the way Western politicians are enamored with performing "political correctness," many contemporary Western leftist theorists continue to conduct their reflections on identity politics and its associated right-wing populism as academic critiques sheltered under the roof of the capitalist state. Although these theories may appear radical and morally upright, as long as their reflections on identity politics do not aim at transforming the capitalist relations of production, and as long as they remain indifferent to the catastrophic consequences for the material interests of ordinary people—including the white lower-middle class—brought about by the capitalist mode of production, their theories will remain nothing more than discursive tools that provide a disguised defense for contemporary capitalist rule. Consequently, the various new types of anti-capitalist movements upon which they place such high hopes will still be unable to escape the fate of being co-opted by capitalism.
In short, identity politics emerged as a strategic choice for the Western Left in the post-industrial era—a desire to pursue equality while being unable to break through the existing framework of capitalism. It not only fails to realistically change the manifold inequalities triggered by economic inequality under capitalist conditions, but instead continuously leads the Western leftist movement down a path of no return, deviating from socialist ideals and the interests of the working class. Therefore, it is difficult for identity politics to lead the contemporary Western leftist movement in truly breaking free from its historical predicament. In stark contrast to this, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a New Era, marking the fact that scientific socialism has displayed unprecedented vitality and vigor in 21st-century China. This historical process fully demonstrates that China is precisely the key force leading the world socialist movement out of its historical predicament and promoting the revival of scientific socialism in the 21st century. Consequently, we have a responsibility to unswervingly adhere to the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, comprehensively build a great modern socialist country, and achieve the Second Centenary Goal [17]. By demonstrating the superiority of the socialist system and the new achievements of socialist construction, we shall contribute Chinese strength to the revival of world socialism. (References omitted)
(The author is an Associate Professor at the School of Marxism, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences) Web Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Marxism Studies (《马克思主义研究》), 1st Issue, 2025.