There are many critics of the Infrared Collective led by my comrade Haz Al-Din, but among them, Daniel Tutt stands out as my favorite.
To be clear, I strongly disagree with most of the conclusions in his recent article about MAGA Communism, which I believe are grounded in both a lack of evidence and Tutt's personal desire to mitigate criticism within "leftist" circles. This criticism likely stems from his decision to engage in a conversation with Haz on his live stream, and for allowing his work to be publishing in the Midwestern Marx Institute's Journal of American Socialist Studies. These actions, I'm sure, subjected him to backlash--similar to what I faced when my organization (Midwestern Marx) began collaborating with the Infrared Collective. However, unlike the majority of the ACP's detractors, Tutt demonstrates a genuine understanding of what the Infrared Collective represents and why it resonates with so many alienated young Americans living under neoliberal capitalism. I want to take this opportunity to respond to Tutt's recent piece on Infrared and MAGA Communism because, unlike the vast majority of attacks on the ACP, I believe his critique was written in good faith. This makes it an excellent opportunity to explain why I chose to help Haz Al-Din found the American Communist Party, rather than simply taking the more traditional path of Western leftists by joining an organization like PSL, which explicitly promotes liberal cultural or "culture war" values alongside socialist and anti-imperialist politics. An approach which has been the norm in the U.S. since the CIA's Congress for Cultural Freedom program began its work in the early 1950's.* Let us begin with the parts of Tutt's essay that are simply incorrect or based on incomplete information. First, he claims that Infrared's position on productive labor and baristas stems from an effort to pander to conservative culture war leanings, stating, "Most detrimentally, this culture war pandering to the right leads Infrared to adopt a narrow empirical definition of what constitutes the working class, leading them to deny, for example, that service workers or baristas are part of the proletariat." This is entirely incorrect, and I'm disappointed to see Tutt jump to such baseless conclusions without citing any evidence for his claim that Infrared's position is rooted in a desire to cater to culture war-obsessed conservatives. The debate over what constitutes productive labor is as old as the labor theory of value itself--a question Marx frequently grappled with throughout his work. A valuable insight into the nature of the service industry and productive labor comes from Marx's Capital, Volume III, chapter 16, on commercial capital--a point I have frequently raised in this debate. I will give Tutt the benefit of the doubt and assume he has either not read my analysis or that of the ACP. In this chapter, Marx states: "Commercial capital is, therefore, nothing but the producer's commodity capital--capital which has to undergo the process of conversion into money to perform its function as commodity capital on the market--the only difference being that instead of representing an incidental function of the producer, it is now the exclusive operation of a special kind of capitalist, the merchant, and is set apart as the business of a special investment of capital." Here, Marx describes merchants who, rather than adding value to commodities through productive labor, solely facilitate the realization of commodity value through sale on the market. This distinction is essential to understanding the role of service labor within Marxist economic theory. In Marx's time, this function was carried out primarily by merchants who, as the sales and service industries had not yet expanded to the massive scale we see today under modern capitalism, where nearly 80% of the American workforce is employed in the service sector. Most service and sales workers do not add value to commodities through labor but instead facilitate their sale on the market, accelerating the circulation and realization of capital value. Meanwhile, the shareholders who control these industries derive the majority of their money from rents, speculation, and the value added to their products during production--long before this value is realized through its sale on the market. Do Starbucks baristas add something to the product when they grind and pour the coffee? I would say yes. However, this does not mean they hold the same economic power as workers who grow and harvest the coffee beans or transport them across the globe. The labor involved in growing, harvesting, and transporting coffee beans represents the core of productive labor that drives the economy, whereas Starbucks baristas operate at capitalism's surface. Their role is to help realize the value created during production by facilitating the sale of coffee to consumers. This is not a moralistic judgment but a scientific and strategic assessment. We fully support Starbucks workers in their efforts to organize; however, it is a reality that a strike by largely commercial laborers, such as Starbucks baristas, would not wield the same level of economic power as a strike by productive workers, like those in the rail industry. For example, in 2022, Joe Biden and the Democrats went to great lengths to prevent a potential rail strike, even using the power of the state to intervene, while showing minimal concern about the unionization efforts at Starbucks in recent years. Another critique Haz made of the Starbucks baristas is their pursuit of a craft union rather than an industrial union. A craft union, being narrower in scope, often fosters class collaboration between the company and the union's rank and file. The ACP would fully support the creation of a coffee workers' union encompassing the entire industry, including major chains like Dunkin' Donuts or Tim Hortons up in maple leaf land. However, history has shown that a craft union limited exclusively to Starbucks workplaces is likely to result in class collaborationism. This is a dynamic that Walter Reuther and the UAW understood very well during the height of their power. To characterize the critiques I've just outlined as mere "pandering to conservative culture warriors" is, at best, incorrect and, at worst, deeply dishonest. This reflects a broader tendency within modern left-wing scholarship to sidestep the most complex and challenging debates of the Marxist tradition by dismissing those with opposing views as reactionaries. Unfortunately, this is a pattern Daniel Tutt sometimes falls into, despite his apparent efforts to critique in good faith. I'd like to assume that his assessment was based on incomplete information and hope that he will revise his understanding of the ACP's position in light of the arguments I've presented above. Tutt makes two additional claims in his article that I believe are factually, or even objectively, incorrect. These are the assertions that Infrared is inflaming the bourgeois culture war by promoting conservative cultural positions and that Infrared usually finds itself in a position of tailing the Republican Party. Unfortunately, Tutt offers very little evidence to substantiate these claims or to identify specific positions taken by Infrared or the ACP that align with the Republican Party or its culture war agenda. This lack of evidence makes it difficult to understand why Tutt believes Infrared is playing such a role. He writes, "This idea that inside the onion of the Trump MAGA movement is the beating heart of the American proletariat leads Infrared to positions that effectively tail the Republican Party." However, he fails to provide any concrete examples of these allegedly right-wing positions, apart from the previously addressed claim regarding baristas as unproductive laborers--a point we have already examined in detail. As a Midwestern Communist, I don't disagree with the notion that the working class sections of Donald J. Trump's MAGA base, in many ways, represent the beating heart of the American proletariat. I often revisit the 2016 Republican primary debates, where Trump galvanized widespread support by contrasting himself with Republican elites like Jeb Bush, repeatedly criticizing Bush for his brother's role in lying America into the Iraq war. Trump captured the hearts and minds of many American workers by presenting himself as an antidote to the establishment politics of both parties--a system that most working class Americans are thoroughly disillusioned with. Even more than the 2016 debates, though, my understanding of the MAGA phenomenon is shaped by my everyday interactions with the people who see themselves as MAGA--such as my beloved wrestling coach, who protested peacefully outside the White House on January 6th, while other Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, seemingly encouraged by a handful of federal agents.** As I explained in detail in my article defending the MAGA Communism strategy, I was somewhat surprised to find that, during my political conversations with this coach, our positions overlapped far more than they contradicted. He sees Trump as a sort of revolutionary figure--a redeemer fighting on behalf of the impoverished and indebted masses against a corrupt political establishment which he correctly believes has been exploiting working class Americans for years. He also frequently criticized modern culture wars as a new weapon of the ruling class to keep Americans divided, now that the old weapon of racism had lost so much of its edge. Notably, both my Trump-supporting and liberal coaches and teammates alike have been supportive of my work with the ACP in general. From my perspective here in Iowa, the Infrared Collective was among the first on the Marxist left to accurately grasp the Trump phenomenon and understand why he resonated so strongly with the American proletariat--something I believe Daniel Tutt also recognizes to some extent. Trump's rhetoric about bringing jobs back, controlling unregulated immigration that undercuts labor markets, and ending the endless wars was far more appealing to American workers than his more bigoted remarks or infamous Twitter tirades. In fact, a common sentiment among Trump supporters all over the Midwest is that they like Trump but wish the Secret Service would take his Twitter account away. It was Trump's populist and anti-imperialist messaging that flipped so many former Obama voters to his side--not his brash and inflammatory comments about various ethnic groups. One of the things many leftists fail to grasp about MAGA workers in areas like the Midwest is that it would be entirely ineffective to suggest they listen to a more "traditional" western leftist like Hasan Piker. The liberal culture war positions Hasan espouses in nearly every stream are off-putting to much of the Midwestern proletariat, who tend to hold more conservative cultural views. Similarly, a thinker like Daniel Tutt would not resonate with many of the working class people I interact with here in Iowa--not only because of the academic tone of his writing, but also due to the liberal cultural values he both supports and expects all other socialists to openly and explicitly endorse. The online Communist political personality I most often recommend to working class Iowans is Jackson Hinkle. This isn't because I think Jackson is perfect or agree with everything he has ever posted, but because his tone and stance on social issues are unlikely to alienate them. This doesn't mean I believe everyone needs to emulate Jackson's style or adopt his cultural positions, but I do see him as an incredibly effective figure for guiding conservative Americans who are eager to challenge the establishment toward a Communist perspective--one that frames class struggle as the solution, rather than relying on the demagoguery of Trump, who claims to oppose the owning class that he himself belongs to. Haz Al-Din has used the revered culinary institution known as McDonald's as a metaphor to describe the MAGA Communism strategy, famously stating, "We are here for the burger - not the clown." In other words, the goal is to connect with working class Trump supporters through Communism and Marxist ideology, not to follow Trump and support his every move. Jackson Hinkle has exemplified this approach by being one of Trump's most vocal critics among influencers who maintain a large MAGA audience, openly criticizing Trump for appointing figures like Marco Rubio to shape his foreign policy. I believe Tutt is overestimating the extent to which Haz and Jackson are inflaming the culture war while underestimating how he and other leftists contribute to it, exacerbating these divisions within the working class by insistently demanding that everyone adopt their liberal cultural values. In his conversation with Haz, Tutt recounted a story about a transgender friend who called him in tears after seeing a meme they said was anti-trans posted by a member of the Infrared Community. Tutt argued that such rhetoric harms the socialist movement, prompting Haz to discourage his audience from engaging in similarly divisive rhetoric. While I agree that posting genuinely hateful memes is unnecessary and can create divisions within the working class and its movement for liberation, I also believe that it is entirely legitimate to critique modern gender ideology and the ways in which the LGBTQ+ movement and its symbolism have been co-opted and used as tools of the ruling class. For example, corporations like Raytheon and Boeing now participate in Pride Parades and wave rainbow flags to signal their alignment with liberal culture war values--an act of performative solidarity that serves to obscure their role in imperialism and exploitation, implicitly pushing class collaboration based in identity over everything else. It is both anti-Marxist and unfair to dismiss criticism of this phenomenon by claiming that your friend found something offensive or was crying about something. What inflames the culture war more than anything is the insistence that all socialists must adopt the same positions as Raytheon on these issues--or else risk being stripped of their "socialism card" and labeled as a reactionary. The use of woke-ism to promote imperialism and capitalism is a pressing issue that cannot be dismissed simply because some LGBTQ+ individuals may find such critiques offensive or emotionally distressing on an individual level. Marxism is a materialist ideology rooted in the ruthless criticism of all that exists. Declaring certain topics off-limits because they may upset someone is pure bourgeois moralism and individualism, which ultimately serves to alienate working class people from the movement. While Tutt and the academic liberal left milieu he represents assert that all socialists must adopt liberal cultural positions, the ACP strives to find the "Golden Stalinist Center." Although Tutt also criticizes the ACP's admiration of Stalin--an objection I can only roll my eyes at, as it likely stems from his position within the American academy, where praising Stalin is almost as taboo as rejecting liberal culture war positions. The ACP does not expect all members to align with Jackson Hinkle's cultural views or Daniel Tutt's; instead, we advocate a position of tolerance. This means we don't care about your sexual orientation or gender identity so long as you are committed to fighting for the working class and against the capitalist class. Our position extends tolerance not only towards individuals' sexuality and gender identity but also towards those who critically examine the LGBTQ+ movement and its role in upholding bourgeois ideology. Or perhaps those workers who feel these ideas are being pushed on their children at too young an age. We are not inflaming the culture war; we are transcending it through practical action--a task made more challenging by figures like Tutt, who perpetuate culture war divisions by demanding that all socialists conform to the cultural views and values imposed on the American left by the CIA's Congress for Cultural Freedom. To Tutt's credit, he understands what so many Western academic Marxists fail to grasp about Infrared and the nature of the internet itself. He recognizes that, in the modern era, the internet and profile-building are dominant forms of communication, and that political ideologies often incubate online before manifesting more concretely in the real world. Tutt's decision to write such an article reflects the fact that he takes the Infrared community and the American Communist Party seriously as a growing political movement. This sets him apart from many would-be critics, who without reason dismiss us as terminally online fascists seeking power for its own sake or as participants in some far-fetched conspiracy to destroy the American left, as if it hasn't already been thoroughly co-opted and controlled by institutions like the CIA for decades. I look forward to engaging further with Tutt's ideas and hope he continues to follow the work of the Party with an open mind about how Marxists in modern-day America can best navigate the culture war. I also noticed that Tutt refrained from criticizing my organization, Midwestern Marx, which has taken a more tempered approach to critiquing the dominance of liberal cultural values within the left. Interestingly, Tutt compares Haz to the self-help guru Jordan Peterson, rather than drawing parallels to me, even though my work is far more aligned with a "Communist Jordan Peterson" approach--focusing on self-help and the development of a socialist virtue ethic more than anything produced by the Infrared Collective. But if Midwestern Marx and Infrared are unified in pursuing shared political goals under the program and constitution of the American Communist Party, does it make sense to criticize one while ignoring the other simply because we have differences in tone or our approach to analyzing the culture war from a Marxist perspective? I believe that, in time, more and more people will come to understand what we at Midwestern Marx have always prioritized: advancing the class struggle and the cause of anti-imperialism, beyond the distractions of the culture war. These are objectives that I can say with absolute certainty are deeply held by my comrades Haz Al-Din and Jackson Hinkle. We are not here to attack individuals or exacerbate culture war divisions. Our mission is to embed ourselves in our communities and workplaces, educate the masses on Marxist ideology, and advance the class struggle to transform America from a decaying capitalist empire into a socialist republic--one that cares for its people and respects the sovereignty of all nations. To this end, we are making remarkable process. If you'd like to join us in this fight, visit acp dot us today! Citations/Footnotes: * Rockhill, Gabriel. "Article in Counterpunch: 'Lessons from January 6th: An inside job.'" Counterpunch, 18 Feb. 2022 ** Smith, Edward Liger. "In Defense of the MAGA Communism Strategy." Midwestern Marx Institute, 25 May 2024
AuthorEdward Liger Smith is an American Political Scientist and specialist in anti-imperialist and socialist projects, especially Venezuela and China. He also has research interests in the role southern slavery played in the development of American and European capitalism and the origins of money and credit. He is in the Executive Board of the American Communist Party. ArchivesJanuary 2025
1 Comment
Jon
1/19/2025 09:41:41 pm
"as participants in some far-fetched conspiracy to destroy the American left, as if it hasn't already been thoroughly co-opted and controlled by institutions like the CIA for decades."
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Details
Archives
January 2025
Categories
All
|