hegemony
Dear friends,
Recently, we saw the largest protest movement in American history. We also saw this swept away by the capitalist media within a handful of news cycles. But what is practice without theory (well, ... anyway). I think it is worth spending a little time on analysing the underlying ideologies and values of protest movements, particularly when they hold such broad appeal. Through this kind of analysis we might be able to first recognise some fundamental assumptions and a shared epistemology (way of knowing) to elaborate or stretch. I also want to underlabour this writing with Marxist critique, noting that the collapse of Marxian praxis in popular thought is the point of radical departure from engaging the proletariat where they are at. Doing things backwards, let's start with some fundamental challenges of theory in this space first.
From Rosa Luxemburg[1] to V. I. Lenin[2] the beginning of the 1900s saw this rupture between theory and practice repeat. Notably, across the western world the working class were more allied around a union solidarity than our contemporary conditions. In practical terms we can then assume that there is less theory/practice dynamism now than then. If workers were already willing to grapple with issues of ("inferior") class positions then, workers now, for ideological and hegemonic reasons, are often unwilling to engage beyond immediate conditions. Evidencing this theory/practice rupture isn't difficult. Theoretical debates in the Occupy Wall Street protesters have been discussed elsewhere[3], the Sanders 2016 movement attempted to reconnect the divide but ultimately failed to meet its target[4] and armchair socialists have discussed this point of departure at length (I promise I'm not feeling guilty)[5]. And in other American discourse, protest and activist movements such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal program seek navigation of these spaces – treading lightly often to their detriment.
At this moment, we should detour through accelerationism theory, to lay out some groundwork for what's to come (identifying the point of departure). Accelerationism advocates for speeding up and intensifying capitalism's inherent contradictions and technological dynamics, rather than resisting them[6]. But accelerationism is a 'both sides' tactic – though a hegemonic tactic nonetheless. Right-accelerationists embrace intensification as a means to collapse existing (liberal) democratic structures, viewing societal breakdown as necessary for installing hierarchical, ethno-nationalist orders. Manifestos written by right-wing accelerationists – literal murderers – emphasise chaos[7]. Left-accelerationists advocate for using (capitalist) technology and automation to transcend capitalism. Putting it simply: more of this will equal less of this (I'm scratching my head too). They see a post-work society achieved through technological liberation rather than traditional labour organising. Between accelerationists there is also a point of departure between theory and practice: theorists look for systemic transformation through technological and economic forces, practical movements instead devolve into either nihilistic destruction (right) or techno-optimistic reformism (left) that does not address material conditions. Are you feeling all meta'd out yet? I sure am. Basically accelerationists embody "move fast, break shit" believing that this will somehow manifest in the manufacture of concrete political work required for meaningful social change.
Okay, I've jerked you between theory/practice rupture, accelerationist theory practice divide, and we've landed somewhere ideologically adrift. Let's revisit the point of departure in popular movements rather than in a specific theory. Because as we know, there is no grand unifying theory in activist spaces.
We can see a catastrophic theory/practice divide in activist movements littered through history. The Weather Underground, for instance, demonstrated this dynamic. Emerging from Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which had 100,000 members by 1969, the Weathermen faction's adoption of "ultraleft" theory advocating immediate armed confrontation with the government and their belief that mass organisations were unnecessary led them to dissolve SDS entirely and retreat into small guerrilla cells (accelerationist!)[8]. Germany's Red Army Faction (RAF) emerged from the 1968 student movement but similarly destroyed its own base when theoretical commitment to urban guerrilla warfare led them to believe they represented the most "exposed European vanguard" of global revolution, thereby isolating them from the broader left as their tactics became more violent (accelerationist!)[9]. Interestingly, the Black Panthers emerging from grassroots community assistance programs held their ideological roots for longer. By delivering systematic mutual aid everything from large scale free breakfast programs for children to health clinics, and community education[10], activists remained connected to community concerns longer than other movements. With time, however, revolutionary strategy versus community organising became a departure point (...).
Notably, longer lived programs of activism tend to have stronger theoretical connection to grassroots needs. This is an inversion. Social movement theory literature discusses sustained movements requiring ongoing dialogue between theoretical understanding and grassroots experience. Here, for instance, resource mobilisation theory discusses that movements survival may be ensured through resource acquisition and management[11] with adaptability to changing contexts critical to longevity[12] – dialogue and equal distribution of wins (not accelerationist!). Community organising approaches which connect with values of democratic decision-making, Indigenous leadership (and relationality), and concrete winnable campaigns consistently demonstrate superior longevity compared to "vanguard" (frequently accelerationist) models[13]. If you want to read more about connectivity between grassroots needs and activist projects boy have I got you covered in the footnotes[14].
If we return, now, with these schematics to our investigation of the No Kings protests, there are a few theoretical landmines we need to tread carefully around. There is a binding ideology at the heart of these protests – a view that U.S. government should not become a dictatorship. We can pontificate about the lack of voter turnout vs the massive scale of the No Kings protests another time. Fundamentally, it has been shown that the vast majority of American people believe that Trump should not have authoritarian powers[^15]. Great. But upon what ideological base? Fundamentally was the No Kings turnout inspired by notions of democratic preservation? Or is the root ideology behind the protests actually a neoliberal or free market capitalist perspective? And where does the working class fit amongst this?
If we can reconcile the No Kings protest movement as a manifestation of contradictory consciousness[15] (within civil society), we can begin to theorise political connectivity, as well as some points of departure (but let's not overload the brain right this second)[16]. Protesters' rejection of autocratic leadership while they maintain allegiance to liberal democratic institutions reveals a misrecognition of power structures in bourgeois hegemony[17]. A selective critique opposing individual "kings" yet paradoxically preserving the "kingdom" of capitalist "democracy". Read: it is the leader who is wrong, not the system which enables the leader. This shows the breadth of hegemonic ideology. The common sense is that "our (U.S.) system is the best system; that exploitation of that superior system is an individual failing, not a systemic one". Critically, we can, here, recognise that capitalist realism has gripped the "average American". The working class has internalised ruling class ideology. The fundamental focus on personality rather than systemic critique actually serves to reinforce rather than challenge structures and power.
As yet unwritten, and not very praxiological of me, I would rather use criticism of Trump to criticise American fascism as a systemic power. Sure Trump is a terrible person, but the system inflicts much greater ripples of intergenerational pain. This system exists to enable people like Trump all the way down. It isn't "Trump" its the entire political/economic system. Any critique (activism), here, which fails to address this is fundamentally doomed to repeat until such times as protest is made illegal – and the U.S. is well on the way to following Australia on this. Yet, this is a point of departure, because by and large the American people believe that their system is egalitarian – even when no one they know is benefiting from it. This is the colonising of minds – an epistemic war – to reinforce the status quo. The debate of American fascism parallels Gramsci's analysis of fascism as capitalism's authoritarian response to organic crisis[18]. There has been widespread recognition that the United States Government exhibits fascistic tendencies through its history of settler colonialism and racial violence[19]. There has been widespread recognition of the U.S. as a neocolonial empire, acting as a regional bully to ensure capitalist survival[20]. There has been more analysis than we could possible cope with in a lifetime, yet none of it appears to organically connect to grassroots struggles. Gramsci identified fascism as a latent possibility within bourgeois democracy. But the recognition of this has been forestalled by the strength and power of rapidly accelerating hegmeonic ideology supported by technological advancement (hello again accelerationism!). We're seeing the ruling class hope for passive revolution[21], where they absorb and neutralise opposition and maintain fundamental power structures [22]. We saw this with the media rapidly phasing the protests out of the news cycle – and we've seen this globally as capitalist hegemony spreads and metastasises.
The tension between spontaneous protest, organised revolutionary action, and reform sits in Gramsci's dialectical understanding of spontaneity and leadership[23]. While some dismiss protests as ineffective performance (particularly liberals), others recognise their potential as sites for political education and organisation. Spontaneous movements contain embryonic elements of conscious leadership that need be developed through democratic collectives to flourish as organic intellectuals. The challenge becomes transforming diffuse discontent into collective will which sits unified (enough) politically to create action guided by revolutionary theory and strategy, and systematic critique needs to sit at the root of this. The challenge as with all activist movements, is challenging the hegemony, the power of the status quo. Challenging the person (i.e., Trump) is an easier, more politically acceptable, move (though increasingly ICE's war of manoeuvre is making this less the case) within mainstream American ruling ideology promulgated amongst civil society. However, as we've discussed at length here on mind reader, the structural colonial, capitalist, anti-worker, anti-ecological, and anti-human ideology and institutional apparatus is much deeper rooted than an unchecked fascist controlling an unprecedented number of soldiers and nuclear warheads. The fact that the questions is not "how does anyone have this level of power" blows my mind every time.
This is a divergent point for me, and for many other socialist thinkers, from organic protesters. The average American (white, able bodied, straight and cisgender, middle class, middle age, male) thinks Trump should be subject to law. The average intersectionally disadvantaged person (this is the quantitative majority) needs the system to be reformed in order to have any quality of life. The problem is acceptable political discourse is constrained so strongly to the needs of the former group that meagre reforms are all that are allowed to be discussed[24]. How do we shift the discourse away from acceptable "centrist" (verging heavily towards fascist) discourse in such a way that even allows all those oppressed to speak for their struggles? Because the traditional intellectual apparatus is based on a capitalist ontological frame which demands control of (epistemological) discourse such that language which challenges oppression is impermissible[25]. And holding, strongly, this way of thinking – if it happened that I were in a position of leadership amidst the No Kings movement – would likely become an area of significant tension with those mostly comfy white dudes.
Let's take an example of a pro-socialist education movement (because this draws from my lived experience of organising large scale activism). In identifying, post-mortem, the ruptures of theory and practice which disintegrated the movement I would name hegemony, intersectionality, and economics as fundamental points of break. Chiefly, hegemony makes it difficult for any activist movement to gain sufficient momentum for change. This includes the full weight of the ideological apparatus of the hegemony, the media, education systems, police, government (fines, etc.), and so on. The intersectional rupture becomes twofold: (1) those with a marginalised identity failing to holistically connect with the movement; (2) those connected with the movement not seeing their needs met by the leadership of the movement, or seeing the leadership move away from a position which validated their needs. This micro-fracturing of allegiances, needs, ideas, thought and so on repeats across all persons participating in the movement regardless of their relative stature. Anyone with a friendship group would likely also be familiar with such politics[26].
To be clear, I commend the democratic and largely transformative way these protests were intentioned. The use of peaceful protest, broad appeal, and anything which shows Trump for the fascist capitalist dictator he is has my tick of approval (not that anyone asked). However, the points of departure towards change – desperately needed positive systemic change – make this a difficult space for praxis. It's paradoxical –
Our systems need to change, faster than ever, because they are changing faster than ever.
Convincing people that their view of change, for instance, "Trump must go" is not "radical" enough, without collapse into accelerationism is nearly unimaginable (and thereby rupturing the protest movement for "valid" ideological reasons, rupture nonetheless). The average American discourse in particular is so allergic to anything resembling socialism, that even equity initiatives are often looked upon scornfully. Yet those casting the scorn are often those who would benefit most from reform. This is the nature of hegemonic media, education, and systems control[27]. Breaking the way of thinking, working, might be achieved incrementally but it can't be achieved through departure. "You're being to radical", "you just want to break shit", etc. which are critiques hurled by right-accelerationists seeking technological engulfment of the proletariat for fascist ends. And still acceleration into violence is the last thing I, personally, and many socialists would want, so... Regardless, the critique remains as long as capitalism defines our shared ontology and revokes agency for one's own episteme.
Gosh, we're so many layers deep that even I've lost track! Let me simplify in bullets before we say farewell to one another for the moment:
- No Kings effectively targeted a fascist leader;
- The fascist leader is both symbolic and literal embodiment of capitalist fascism, and hegemony (an accelerationist capital-techno-fascism);
- Critique of the fascist leader is already extremely difficult and receives little airtime due to His hegemony;
- Broader critique of the system which enables this leader is not on the table with No Kings – both from a left and right wing perspective (because it is close to disintegrating anyway due to the weight of hegemony);
- Discussion of the limited airtime (coverage) is largely off the table for American discourse;
- Critique of capitalism is seen as "communist" and flagged as dangerous due to educational hegemony;
- Points of rupture between idealised ideologies and idealised lived realities create discord and paradox which can destroy movements;
- Everything else already seeks to destroy anti-capitalist movements; and
- Well, stalemate.
There's a real need for genuine empathy and education in moving liberals toward more radical leftist ideologies. We're just not sure they're interested unless they're made personally uncomfortable. Still, I remain hopeful that compassion and empathy will win.
Yikes,
Aidan.
- https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm ↩︎
- https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ ↩︎
- https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/occupy-socialist-anarchist/ ↩︎
- https://theconversation.com/bernie-sanders-says-the-left-has-lost-the-working-class-has-it-forgotten-how-to-speak-to-them-243160 ↩︎
- cf., https://www.law.georgetown.edu/denny-center/blog/labor-unions-capitalism/ ↩︎
- for a relatively clear explanation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in ↩︎
- https://theconversation.com/a-field-guide-to-accelerationism-white-supremacist-groups-using-violence-to-spur-race-war-and-create-social-chaos-255699 ↩︎
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Weathermen ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.1080/10576109308435925 ↩︎
- https://bppaln.org/programs ↩︎
- cf., https://doi.org/10.1086/226464 ↩︎
- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2329496519850846 for one example ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2010023 and also https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0899825619300089 ↩︎
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378013002197 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096877/full https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10162496/ ↩︎
- look no further than https://search.worldcat.org/title/14965368 ↩︎
- I could do another whole dispatch looking at collective structures of subalterns (in Gramsci's originary sense) but I'll just drop this here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/089356902101242242 ↩︎
- This is another can of theoretical worms, but: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt18dzstb.13 ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137334183_3 ↩︎
- An absolute must read: https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240 and a bit more if you're on a spree https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520273436.003.0005 ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005 and https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.01020-4 ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.7202/016590ar ↩︎
- an interesting analysis of this kind of structure https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt19b9jz2 ↩︎
- cf., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199457557.001.0001 ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.4.2.d7593370607l6756 ↩︎
- Don't get too bogged down here, but there's useful sketches in: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm ↩︎
- This is a whole poststructural epistemic mess, but the ideas are nonetheless important: https://doi.org/10.1086/669608 ↩︎
- Old faithful: https://chomsky.info/19890315/ ↩︎
Dear friends,
As usual, I've spent a bit of time thinking about our current, largely accelerationist, political milieu and its relationship with the (news/social) media. Of most interest to me, at least at this particular moment, is how quickly the cycle changes, and how obvious the political bias of the media truly is. This is exacerbated, particularly here in Australia, by the fundamental lack of diversity of media ownership. It's a Murdoch town here, and he's got goons and crowbars ready for any serious start-up contender. Perhaps I should quickly clarify, in case any of the litigious media cronies are loitering, they have "earned" those billions of dollars of surplus funding, and their dominance begets them a naturally (out)sized influence in the chambers of parliament. Digressing, we are in a bit of a tangle. Social and traditional media ownership concentration is rife, the news cycle is attention grabbing shorter and shorter attention spans, and fascism is rising.
We've talked about social media, and the ways algorithms focus people's attention, and we've thought on media hegemony and the concentration of media ownership as a soapbox. But there's a schematic, here, emerging for us to consider worth further analysis. Media, in the varied forms which exist, have an extreme influence on civil society ideology and practice, and this requires examination. In particular we should ever examine our media in light of current events, as wars, ideological battles, and genocide become normalised, it is ever more important. Gramsci offers us a framework for understanding power and the relationship between capitalist/worker coloniser/colonised, and more, and emphasises the power of the media:
"The press is the most dynamic part of the ideological structure, but not the only one. Everything that directly or indirectly influences or could influence public opinion belongs to it: libraries, schools, associations and clubs of various kinds, even architecture, the layout of streets and their names"
- Gramsci, 1971
There is a significance in the way media, or in Gramsci's time the press, has influence over public opinion. For Gramsci the thinkers and workers in those institutions, those responsible for writing the news for instance, are 'traditional intellectuals'. These educated folks work in knowledge production but are utterly subservient to the capitalists and narratives which benefit them. Yet Gramsci compels us to determine ways to redirect their efforts from pro-capitalist production towards emancipatory ends. But let's not get overly sidetracked – we'll come back to Gramsci at the end. For now, let's examine some 'common sense' perspectives and offer some good sense retorts to help us solidify our thinking in relation to theories of knowledge. For our consideration today:
- News cycles are operated in short terms;
- Some (counter-hegemonic) stories are are deliberately phased out of those cycles;
- Social media vies for and directs attention of multitudes towards popular narratives;
- Most hegemonic narratives drive individualist pro-capitalist thought; and
- All media sits atop a consumerist, colonial and pro-capital base and is imbued by this way of thinking.
In an effort to be somewhat systematic, let's start with news cycles. In the United States, television news is notoriously set in 24 hour cycles, or perhaps 12 hour cycles, with attention spans increasingly shortening. Simultaneously attention as a metric becomes foundationally desirable[1]. There are events which may increase or decrease the total number of news stories covered, but largely there is a constant feed of new material for news media to ensure novelty. This novelty – the demand for new news – is political. The stories shared are tinted with a way of knowing which drives a consumerist, colonial and pro-capitalist agenda. For instance, for MSNBC, a constant soft critique of Republican "decision-making" without proper reflection on Democrats failings, for Fox News a constant libellous critique of anyone ... anyone but Trump. But at both ends of a political scale these news corporations follow a common pattern: amplify a particular issue (related to a spin of hegemonic ideology), monetise attention (the level of this attention is now gaged by social media interactions), persist political narratives, move on to the next story. Throughout the cycle of introduction, monetisation, politicisation, and constant movement there are subtler themes. These largely relate to the monetisation of a particular channel – i.e., Fox News wants to retain angry viewers, and to direct their fervour into consumerism for Murdoch-friendly enterprises (read: sell shit).
Relatedly, during this clamouring for new news, stories which shed negative light on the cable news company's view of capitalism are silenced and phased out. Equally, and muddying these waters, stories which do not appear to capture the audience's attention are also phased out. Let's move to an example. Take for instance the rapid turn away from coverage of the largest protest movement in American history. This was covered quietly for about three days. For an event of such scale, this coverage is extremely short in terms of news cycles. If we were asked to decide between the two reasons for this story to be phased out, which would you select as a more likely reason? Limited newsworthiness or limited commercialisation opportunities. The politicisation of attention continually demands new stories, but never those which might challenge the dominant ideology – colonial capitalism. And with the large-scale monetisation of attention and emotion for consumerism under capitalism, disruption that verges anywhere near a critique of the hegemony is preordained as danger. Even in important could-be news stories we can see the political protection of colonial capitalism, take for instance Trump featuring heavily in the Epstein files. This challenges Trump, but also draws attention to the systemic failure to bring justice to young people exploited directly by capitalists. A story like this, a threat to capitalist hegemony, if even covered would be made to seem irrelevant and boring. The media use a handful of techniques here to balance "doing the job" and not challenging the status quo: overdoing charts, numbers and statistics, speaking in a disengaged tone, burying the article, not sending a push notification, or keeping just the anchor on screen for a segment read. Here, we'll see the news delivered while allowing the media to direct attention the way the hegemonic political agenda demands.
As traditional media languishes, relatively unable to capture attention during the TikTokification of news, new exaggerated attention-seeking practices emerge. Social media is repositioned as the most important space for that attention, while simultaneously fracturing it and directing it elsewhere. Even the news cycle itself has accelerated to "real-time" blogs and image+text formats to vie for a share of acknowledgement in a crowded market of diminished attention[2]. We also see increased sensationalisation and accelerationism which does more than grab at attention, it fundamentally shapes the pitch and tone of stories and may warp the truth of events just to stand out amidst users ad-ridden social media feeds of hundreds of news sources, comedy artefacts, and maybe the occasional family photo. Social media algorithms (often manipulated by billionaire fiefdom kings) then amplify the most successfully sensationalised story, which in turn feeds new garbage and extreme perspectives back into the 24 hour news cycle. Similarly to Elon re-training Grock on the right-wing misinformation echo chamber that is Twitter, the ouroboros of extremist shit masticates yesterdays garbage back into today's headlines. As though this weren't indictment enough, media moguls and pro-imperial think-tanks continue to cycle "in" meaningless pro-genocide, pro-war, and pro-military industrial complex propaganda as though it were news. This blend becomes digital noise, impossible to permeate. Moreover, discerning fact from fiction, ideology from representation of reality, becomes a mammoth task, particularly for those whose digital literacy was (is!) never developed. Do I sound like Žižek? Ideology[3]!
If we consider social media to be the 'new' media kid on the block, it's worth examining its thematic ideological structures too. Following our assertion above that (cable) news media seeks to craft pro-capital consumerism around increasingly irrelevant news stories, then social media's primary drive is most likely for attention. This attention (seeking), naturally, is political too. And the political choices made by platforms are highly ideological, and gatekeep audiences[4], to craft a deliberate global narrative. Between these two medias ('traditional' and 'social') there is often collusion, traditional news driving engagement in sensationalised discussions on social media, exposing users to more interaction-based advertisement. Thereby driving up "engagement" statistics for social media companies, who then sell ad spaces back to the traditional news providers. Hang on... where are the benefits for the traditional media organisations?[5]
Traditional media cannibalises itself to drive engagement on platforms which, by their nature, put traditional media out of work (extreme example of this in Australia where our news media was largely blocked on Meta while News Corp attempted to force them to pay for linking to their articles). Here we are seeing a thinning of traditional media as they suffer with advertisers moving to the new media platforms. And, with social media giants increasingly consuming their competition (Facebook buying Instagram, anyone?) we are seeing a gentrification of all media – robbing a plurality internet forums to feed a singular behemoth (Meta). This meta (get it, ha) amalgam of social medias, strip mining the internet and traditional media and asserting itself as king has created one giant entity. In a cruel twist of fate this singular overlord of a platform heavily promotes an ideology of individualism. And its not just individualism for you[6]. This individualism coalesces around the attention drive, but it would be foolish to suggest direct causation. There has, however, been a rapid intensification of content which spurs self interest – perhaps psychologically there's a connection? Narcissus shines again.
Contrary to assumptions about social media democratising information access, the handful of dominant platforms have been shown to operate through curation systems that actively shape what content receives collective attention[7]. An attention economy has emerged, one tightly controlled by Meta (the conglomerate owner of Facebook, Instagram, Threads and others), and their vested interest is driving consumer engagement in advertising (particularly targeted advertising) and in an oddly non-paradoxical way, content gains attention based on already-received attention[8]. When studied, however, even aggregation platforms, which arguably help shape which stories gather attention, such as Reddit, made use of human ranking algorithms that direct which posts climb feeds (subtle, here, read the footnote)[9]. In essence, platform owners determine which voices gain visibility and which remain marginalised by their initial promotion (or lack thereof) in feeds. While engagement-forward and clickbait content has some affect, the initial filtration and ranking system which is deliberately opaque on corporate social media platforms has a remarkable influence on popular attention – and rarely is it not advertiser-friendly[10].
You may also have noticed, here, that there is an underlying thread of 1:1 relationships. The user has a relationship with the platform. The viewer has a relationship with the platform (subscription service). The advertiser with the platform. The traditional media? The platform. But it's not just the platform redefining relationships with media such as the infamous Web 2.0 (RWW), its a fundamental rewrite of human social interaction. In research in the above[10:1] a term emerged: "individuals-in-the-group". Rather than being "social" media, these platforms are attention-seeking individualising platforms above all as they seek monetisation and profitability. Not a "social" platform, but an advertising platform. We could, therefore, extend our argument, social media sites function as spaces to internalise competitive values rooted in "performance metrics", "(anti)social consumer behaviour", and perpetual "self-optimisation". One literally needs look no further than the ads. But it's not just our argument. Research has shown this is not only the case, but deliberately the mission of the platform[11]. The platform acts as a hegemonic organ shaping neoliberal identities, encouraging people to adopt individualistic mindsets[12] and seek personal remedies[13] for what are usually fundamentally macro social challenges. Through constant engagement with these sites, users gradually embrace a worldview which prioritises individual achievement and self-improvement over collective action and systemic solutions.
Concerningly, social media also contributes to "depoliticisation" by transforming political issues into individual lifestyle choices rather than collective action problems. Climate change becomes just a personal consumer choice problem, economic hardship due to wealth inequality becomes personal loan fodder, identity becomes politics. Even as far back as 2011 research into social media's effect on collective vs personal ideology and values in online political spaces was being investigated[14]. Though the media broadly has been interrogated for its role in promoting individualism and other neoliberal colonial capitalist attitudes for decades. The movement from collective to individual organisation of society feeds that very consumerism, colonialism, capitalism, and elitism. From media ownership concentration to all eyes on advertising revenues, systems continue to confine acceptable discourse to consumerist capitalism. Human suffering, in this space, is theatre – grist for the mill, and sensationalisation, 'civil' debate, and influencers simply keep the advertising machine rolling. However, there are models which ease our understanding of this system, and even offer opportunities to challenge the hegmeonic thinking.
Famously Herman and Chomsky developed the 'Propaganda Model', which argues that mass media in democratic societies primarily serves already powerful interests. It achieves this through five filters: (1) concentrated corporate ownership of media (massive capital investment), (2) dependence on advertising revenue that favours content appealing to affluent audiences, (3) reliance on official sources from government and business for news, (4) organised criticism that disciplines media deviating from elite interests, and (5) historically, anti-communism as an ideology that limits acceptable debate. These filters work together to create a propaganda system where news appears objective but systematically favours establishment views and marginalises dissent[15]. This model is particularly relevant to the construction of the US media, but is also growingly relevant as the US owned social media platform (Meta) subsumes any local/global alternatives. As it was with the media when this model was divined, social media also operates to secure and promote the agenda of an unelected wealthy elite, a wealthy elite profiting from human suffering and the destruction of our planet. As we consume ourselves to death, and intellectually backflip to make this our problem, we're eased by the comfort of advertising which suggests its all within our individual narcissistic power to change the world. Just lie back and stare at Instagram, and ignore those increasingly despotic capitalists over there, they're harmless.
So, where are we? We've seen that the acceleration of news cycles creates temporal conditions favouring simple reactionary narratives over complex systemic analysis [16]. This temporal pressure combines with systematic exclusion of counter-hegemonic perspectives to create an information environment dominated by establishment viewpoints. Social media amplifies this by directing collective attention toward content optimised for engagement rather than democratic value, while simultaneously promoting individualistic responses that depoliticise collective problems. The entire system rests on consumerist foundations which require media to serve capital's interests rather than democratic functions [17]. Digital platforms function as mechanisms of ideological reproduction that atomise collective solidarity while concentrating power in technological and financial elites[18]. Amazing. What a time to be alive. Let's return to Gramsci for some clarification about what we might do about all this.
Gramsci's "hegemony" shows us that this media apparatus functions as both propaganda and fundamental architecture of common sense. The accelerated news cycle, algorithmic curation, and individualistic framing we've examined constitute what Gramsci critiqued in examining the colonial capitalist hegemonic project. This project is one that secures ruling class dominance through coercion and rewriting human relations through capitalist logic emphasising that these are natural, inevitable, and personally beneficial (surprise: they aren't). The traditional intellectuals working within these media institutions, from journalists to platform engineers, are (often unquestioning) architects of consent to this reality, their technical expertise enlisted in service of maintaining the existing order. But Gramsci also offered us illustration of the contradictions within this system. Technologies which atomise us also offer possibilities for organic intellectual development and counter-hegemonic organisation[19]. The challenge, then, is to develop alternative forms of cultural and intellectual leadership that contest the dominant narratives at their root – not at the symptom. We need new "institutions", new forms of governance and collective knowledge production which nest in understanding our shared reality; a war of position which recognises media as a crucial battleground in the struggle for egalitarian social transformation. Or something, I don't know, it's Wednesday. Go out and touch grass.
In solidarity,
Aidan
- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09311-w https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103243 ↩︎
- https://dhq-static.digitalhumanities.org/pdf/000582.pdf https://doi.org/10.1145/1557019.1557077 ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137361516_3 ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544391199.n177 ↩︎
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.20851/j.ctt1t304qd.13 ↩︎
- Its everything from "coaches" to influencers, it's all about you. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/jun/24/what-i-learned-following-400-online-instagram-gurus ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2024.59619 ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19283 https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwae035 ↩︎
- This study "highlight that the order in which content is ranked can influence the levels and types of user engagement within algorithmically curated feeds" - https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.20491 ↩︎
- i.e., https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115622481 ↩︎ ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia4020041 ↩︎
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7673976/ ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia4020041 ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.579141 (yes, 2010 was 15 years ago – the horror) ↩︎
- https://chomsky.info/consent01/ ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103243 ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8040497 ↩︎
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038520918562 ↩︎
- c.f., lemmy; mastodon; etc. ↩︎
Dear friends,
Long time no correspondence. I hope you are well.
Broadly speaking we tend to categorise political moments into shapes, types, and kinds, which have a belonging to an orientation, left wing, right wing, ‘centrist’, brutal, violent, ugly, aggressive, loud, irritating, whingey, and so on. These labels, at least to me, conjure certain frames of thinking – stereotypes, if you like.
On reading a NLR Sidecar post from late last year, I found myself thinking about the way that propaganda is used by both ‘left’ and ‘right’, particularly the mobilisation of tropes around groups of people. These tactics, specifically propagandist tactics, belong to the entire political spectrum. And the tactics used are separable from a tradition, even if configurations may trigger certain feelings of a party, group, or association with political affiliation (i.e., republican use of identity politics to divide “and conquer”). The tactic, under the surface, remains relatively similar. But let’s get slightly more specific, take a slow stroll towards the analysis today.
Conservatives, broadly, the right wing are loosely interested in mechanisms which centre individualism and (their conception of) ‘merit’. This often means market-focussed ‘solutions’ to problems no one was looking to solve – or hierarchical assertions to hold orthodoxy of exploitation in stasis. The broad scale conservative mechanisms include market-based solutions and private enterprise, ‘traditional’ institutions (‘family’, ‘church’), adherence to hierarchical structures and established authority, regressive change. Tactics, which flow from these mechanisms include tax cuts and deregulation, propagandist appeals to tradition and ‘cultural’ values, extreme focus on conceptions of law and order, individual responsibility, adherence with extremist religious groups, and so on. Modalities, the tools to achieve and back these tactics, often include church and community group organising, conservative media networks, think tanks and policy institutes funded by wealthy backers, pushing action with benightedness for legal frameworks, school, church and state legislature campaigns.
Liberals the ‘centre’ are mostly interested in mechanisms which balance individual rights with institutionally managed reform. This typically means regulatory solutions that preserve existing power structures while offering extremely mild incremental improvements – or technocratic assertions to maintain institutional stability. Characteristic liberal mechanisms include loosely regulated markets for the bourgeoisie with government oversight, public-private partnerships, exemptions and shameless excuses for the capitalist class, ‘democracy’ favouring institutions and enterprise, and conservative policy making. Tactics tend to include ‘compromise’ (almost exclusively for the bourgeoisie, ever favouring the capitalist) and ‘bipartisanship’ (read: negotiation with conservatives), focus group style messaging, light weight government programs, means-tested social services, and bourgeoise regulatory frameworks. Modalities might be professional lobbying, mainstream media engagement, non-profit advocacy organisations funded by ‘philanthropic’ foundations, ‘expert’ consultation, and electoral politics only through established parties, spurning any progressive or independent parties.
Leftists, the left wing, pursue mechanisms that prioritise collective liberation and shared prosperity over individual advancement. Our approach centres on redistributive economics that dismantle oppressive hierarchies to encourage equitable communities to develop. Rather than ‘reform capitalism’, leftists advocate for transformative alternatives: democratic worker cooperatives that empower employees, participatory democracy that gives voice to all citizens, mutual aid networks that embody genuine solidarity, and more. These mechanisms generate powerful tactics, mass mobilisation and general strikes that unite working people; community self-defence that protects the vulnerable; direct action that immediately confronts injustice rather than waiting for bureaucratic approval. Our modalities reflect this a commitment to transformation; vibrant underground networks and liberatory education circles complement dynamic social media organizing; independent journalists and visionary artists create compelling counter-narratives to corporate media; resilient solidarity economies build thriving alternative institutions while simultaneously eroding extractive capitalist structures. Where conservatives move for racist, sexist, ableist and anti-queer ‘traditions’ and liberals settle for capitalist appeasement unashamed of the radical misbalance of power of a system that ‘works well enough’, leftists imagine and actively work to construct better social relations rooted in dignity, justice, and collective flourishing.
Notice a shift in the tone, there? This, in itself, is a (deliberately inflated) propagandist technique – a divisive strategy meant to disparage centre and right wing folks, that could easily be turned on its head, so let’s do that, as much as it pains me, take two on the first paragraph will illustrate this modality:
Conservatives champion mechanisms that celebrate individual achievement and personal responsibility. Their time-tested approach centres on market-driven solutions that reward innovation and hard work while preserving cherished foundations. Rather than impose top-down mandates, conservatives attempt to trust in the wisdom of ‘free enterprise’, the stability of traditional institutions like family and faith communities, and the strength of established social structures. These mechanisms inspire empowering tactics, tax relief that lets families keep more of their earnings; regulatory freedom that enables entrepreneurial activity; robust law enforcement that ensures safe neighbourhoods (it physically pains me to write this, gross); strong moral frameworks that guide personal conduct. Their modalities reflect deep community roots: vibrant church networks that provide spiritual guidance and practical support; influential media voices that defend timeless values; respected think tanks that develop principled policy solutions; grassroots campaigns that engage citizens in local governance. Where leftists pursue untested theories and liberals expand bureaucratic control, conservatives steadfastly protect individual liberty, honour enduring traditions, ... right, that’s absolutely enough of that.
The exercise above attempts to reveal something crucial about political communication: the same underlying structures: mechanisms, tactics, and modalities, can be dressed in radically different rhetorical clothing. What we’re looking at is a crude example of propagandist techniques, which are remarkably malleable. The shift in tone between my original leftist framing and the conservative rewrite gives us an insight into how political writing shapes perception and, ultimately, political reality – consider literally everything that comes out of the Murdoch press, and how it is ruthlessly conservative in (under)tone.
This flexibility of framing should give us pause, particularly when we consider how these tools are strategically deployed across our media landscape. Every political actor, from Pauline Hanson’s “plain speaking” to the Greens’ crafted messaging around “pushing Labor”, employs these mechanisms, tactics, and modalities with increasing sophistication. Fundamentally, however it is how consciously and cynically these mechanisms of coercion are deployed. This can be a fine line, an Instagram reel can quickly begin to ‘feel’ political and give the viewer the ick and on they flick, but a strategic narrative and communications strategy can enable genuine change – left or right be damned.
For instance, we might consider how Sky News mirrors Fox News’ playbook, or how the ABC’s ‘balanced’ reporting often legitimises extremist right-wing positions in the name of both sides journalism – shifting the Overton window ever further to the right. Even ‘progressive’ outlets like The Guardian deploy their own rhetorical strategies, selecting which stories to amplify and which voices to centre. Lok no further than the coverage on the US-backed genocide Israel is committing in Palestine – while The Guardian is allegedly a left-wing outlet, its coverage utterly supresses the mass murder of Palestinians and political supporters therein. Moreover, the atrocious political circus which was the voice referendum showed this in stark relief. The same constitutional mechanism was framed as either divisive identity politics or modest recognition, depending entirely on who was doing the framing. Where does the power lie, and must we keep wondering?
These tactics are also ever present in social media, a capitalist prison manufactured for the unwitting consumer. Bombarded daily with advertising and baseless consumerism, the social media channels increasingly throw in extremist political positions – ever favouring the right wing. That TikTok about housing affordability might be grassroots activism or carefully crafted political messaging, and increasingly, it’s actually both. Instagram reels explaining economic policy tend not to be able to use the same addictive formats as right-wing hate speech, so are discarded either by the algorithm or the consumer, while YouTube doesn’t distinguish between genuine political education and sophisticated propaganda, though it prefers the latter for ‘engagement’ metrics.
Each political actor, regardless of their ‘stated’ ideology, operate within colonial capitalism. Yes, even the Trotskyists. Whether it’s the Coalition defending mining interests, Labor’s ‘pragmatic’ climate policies (i.e., approve coal mines and fuck the future for everyone, Albo needs another property), or even some leftist movements that fail to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty, or ignore the far reaching grasp of capitalist realism, the underlying system shapes what is considered realistic or even reasonable political discourse.
This system has steadily shifted the Overton window rightward over decades. What was once considered extreme right-wing policy, like mandatory detention of asylum seekers or privatising essential services, is now bipartisan ‘common sense’ (c.f., Gramsci). Meanwhile, policies that were mainstream in the Whitlam era, like free university education or ambitious public housing programs, are dismissed as ‘radical’ or economically ‘irresponsible’. Even basic social democratic proposals are branded as far-left extremism by Labor diehards, media commentators, and outlets tone guides who have internalised a constant breeze to the east (or, ‘rightward drift’). The result is a political landscape where the centre keeps chasing the right, while genuinely progressive ideas are confined to the margins of acceptable discourse by Labor and it’s hegemonic bloc.
This is where critical media literacy is essential. Understanding that every headline is political, be it about ‘African gangs’, ‘economic analysis’, and even feel good stories about individual charity obscure systemic failures, this should be basic skills. Alas, critical media literacy, hell even technology literacy, is largely eradicated from the Australian Curriculum, and fewer than ever teachers are empowered to teach critically.
My question to you, then is, do we accept and continue to use these tools, these modalities, mechanisms or tactics to perpetuate existing systems of exploitation? Can we imagine and build something radically different? Do we need new tools (c.f., Lorde) and how can we co-construct these in the face of capitalist realism? In an era where political communication is increasingly sophisticated and ubiquitous, developing critical consciousness is a survival skill, one that we need a decolonial, anti-capitalist, and fundamentally humanist approach to – at least that’s what I reckon. But you can’t solve all the worlds problems in a single post, ey.
Much love, solidarity, and hope,
Aidan