The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language…the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.

Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

What is subculture? Subculture is the ritualistic fetishization of communist/socialist/trade-union political thought, culture, or tradition from centuries past that no longer reflects (or historically has never reflected) the modernity of political subjects from which we seek the emergence of the proletariat. It is zealously championed under the guise of a ‘forgotten’ heritage that somehow warrants perpetual mummification—as if it is no longer the millions who make their own new history and culture, but rather are suddenly gifted it from above by benevolently enlightened socialists. This attitude is inherently ‘sub’-cultural in that it represents a marginal sect of the broader population in the form of activists and online sympathizers; it is found distinctly absent from any sort of mainstream political practice. Its relation is between a sect of knowers attempting to impart esoteric knowledge to a flock, not bring them into political struggle.

Let’s take the Communist Party USA’s very own Paul Robeson and his rendition of Joe Hill. It is an incredibly moving, somber ballad that depicts a conversation with the ghost of the titular IWW member who was framed and executed in Utah, 1915. The imagery of Hill’s spirit living on within the struggle of workers around the country cements it as both a beautiful testament to the spirit of the proletariat and a grave reminder of the challenges we face. Then, it was a beautiful piece that pointed to an ideal that seemed possible in a different time. Today, it is but one of countless historical markers that represent the legacy of the giants whose shoulders we stand on, and those who sacrificed their lives for a better world.

Yet, it is almost entirely void of salience in the context of the modern political movement—except to those already integrated into subculture. The idolization of these figures and markers reaches such an intense level within the subculture that it bleeds into the rest of its political scope. Despite their antiquity, the idea that basing our aesthetic—worse yet, our political strategy—around these expired cultural elements of labor, music, symbolism, and more somehow makes for an appealing milieu compared to that which is already being actively produced by the millions is an unfortunately more-than-frequent occurrence.

This is the modern ouroboros of the American left. Whether one bleats to the simple tune of The Internationale or Solidarity Forever at the end of meetings, wears an outfit filled with a million hammer-and-sickle insignias to a major electoral rally, solicits socialist thought by selling tangential books and newspapers just off to the side of a march, or otherwise sanctifies so-called ‘time-honored’ traditions, customs, or figures—it is deceptively dangerous. It is likely that this subculture originates from what is often called a crisis of atomization and loneliness in the modern world—from countless Americans lacking a community-shared set of customs in which the individual sees themselves through others and is therefore realized by the many, and landing on a set of shared symbols, phrases, and rituals that impart a sense of solidity and historical continuity. This thirst we all share to some degree makes imbibing the subcultural a most tempting oasis—but we are drinking saltwater.

A Socialist Family Wreath

It is far too common that one becomes enamored with the elements of subculture as part of the introduction to a socialist ‘lifestyle’. In our case, there is both a ‘left’ subculture and a ‘right’ subculture. It manifests everywhere: perhaps a YouTuber who boasts Soviet aesthetics and memorabilia made you want to be ‘with it’ just like them, so you purchase a spectrum of communist flags to wave or a t-shirt with Che Guevara’s face emblazoned on the front to let the people know that they ‘need’ socialism. Or, you might make an acquaintance or two through a sect rally or DSA event who influence your tastes; when the sectarian nature hypnotically coaxes you into a ‘choice’ of this or that caucus or faction, you find yourself attempting to appeal to co-workers by pleading with them to attend a lecture on American trade unionism after their shift. A video of an old, labor-weathered union veteran named Nimrod Workman chanting O’ Death is presented on the basis that, once workers are taught about their ‘true’ history, such antiquated symbolism will inevitably awaken the slumbering spirit of radicalism. You find that a single mother of three who works tirelessly to provide for her family will see the light of socialism once she spends several hours of her week reciting the history of the Dutch socialist movement in the 30s or discussing the minutiae of organizational bylaws in the name of ‘deliberative democracy’.

Despite its near-universal ubiquity, because it does not realize human beings as simultaneously individual and collective political agents borne of modern conditions, this tired method has never worked and will never work in the expected way. The subcultural socialists are left feeling disaffected, hopeless, or worse yet, resentful about the potential of the American proletariat. Repeatedly ramming your head against the wall does not break the wall—it breaks your head.

As a consequence, the politics of DSA and the American left overall become that of “me and my friends”—what we like, what we think is important or necessary—in place of a pluralism obligated to navigate the unique plethora of perspectives in a country of over 320 million people. It has become an incestuous, self-aggrandizing, egocentric prion that actively degenerates the brains of socialists. Subculture represents the creeping normalcy of a domineering subjugation over the people we supposedly seek to represent.

To present examples of this repulsiveness in practice, I will draw upon some relatable anecdotes. The ‘left' subculture correctly refuses to conceal its aims, yet overextends its reach into aggressive attempts at what approximates religious conversion.

I once traveled to Washington, D.C., to attend the “Moral March on Washington” held by the Poor People's Campaign, directly on Pennsylvania Avenue. It was a hot and humid day, but everyone in attendance was clearly ecstatic to be there. Of course, all the socialist factions one can think of were also present. In particular, what caught my eye were the varying styles of banners each group thought appropriate to bring. Some were modest demands; others, like the Party for Socialism and Liberation, contained the strangest phrases I had ever seen on such a banner until that point. It read, “Do You Like Martin Luther King, Jr.? He was a socialist! Follow your leader! Join the PSL!”

What is the problem with this? This example embodies a problematic and more fundamental relation defining our political work. The slogan here aims at peeling off individuals who may have particular interests in socialism or history, basing itself on boosting the authority of the formal term by redirecting appreciation for figures like MLK Jr. towards socialism. Assuming this strategy could be successful, its realized form is also a form of redirection—away from the ongoing struggle, the March on Washington, or the fight for racial justice, towards the priority of the sect. Fundamentally, the error concerns the role of the party: is our task to build our club by picking up the detritus of the mass movements—or is our goal to lead and drive the mass movements to further goals and greater heights? Are we concerned with the vitality of our local branch or the strength and destiny of the American proletariat?

While they were far from being an isolated case at the march, there was a common subcultural threading throughout this sect: all the ideas being agitated for were solicited based on their own aims rather than those of the many for today. When this is inevitably met with failure, bootstrap mentality and vapid rationalizations become the internally predominant mindset as a doubling down of the subcultural phenomena. The rolling up of sleeves and trying harder by “doing the work” becomes a substitute for critically challenging our current preconceptions about the body of politics we are working with. Those who do raise reasonable questions and criticisms are ridiculed, chastized, and often isolated or expelled for not submitting to subcultural rule. Without immersing themselves with, for, and as the people to recognize their needs and desires, subcultural trends and attitudes metastasize further and further into these organizations while membership counts wane into ever-shrinking margins—until a leading left-wing electoral figure creates an upswing that tragically repeats the vicious cycle we now find ourselves in. In other words, despite their criticism of electoral work, the sect tends to subsist purely off the latter’s deterioration and internal contradictions. Ample empirical evidence exists to strongly suggest a correlative and almost certainly causal relationship in this phenomenon—I would wager that anyone reading this can attest to the validity of this observation, whether in their own faction or elsewhere. But you should not take my word for it! You may see the numbers for yourself.

The ‘rightist’ subculture, on the other hand, is defined by a trend of concealing its aims. Although it attempts to accommodate for the latent aversion to socialist ideology by timidly tempering its outward appearance with a purely unionist disposition that charitably seeks to donate ‘long-lost’ knowledge, it operates in such a fashion that the burdens of its shame, dishonesty, and cowardice thoroughly blunt not only its working relationships but also the effectiveness of its political approach towards our country at large.

As part of my first half-decade of communist organizing, I once began to semi-regularly attend a picket line at a bakery that had gone on for a little over two months. The striking employees were assembly line cake preppers, primarily consisting of immigrant Latina mothers. They faced harsh conditions, torturous hours, unreachable quotas, repeated sexual harassment, and even the threat of deportation.

Some allies of the picket line who had begun assisting earlier on were also members of the organization I was with, working discreetly under the guise of a labor front group because they did not want word to get out that the strikers were being assisted by communists. To our credit, everyone worked hard to support the strikers and get them anything they could have possibly needed; food, entertainment, childcare, genuine community support, and other amenities were abundant while on the line, even though we certainly contributed some of the smallest amounts. What we did contribute that was uniquely communist was a movie viewing of Salt of the Earth (1954), displayed on the tiny 10-inch screen of a portable DVD player. It was indeed another attempt at invoking radicalism via symbolic historicism.

Granted, Salt of the Earth accounts for the perspectives of its subjects better than most subcultural methods. The film depicts Mexican-American women who had taken up protest as their husbands went on a miners’ strike, drawing vague parallels to the situation the cake preppers found themselves in. Our group also contained parallels, as the producers of the film were blacklisted by Hollywood for their alleged involvement in communist activities.

Eventually, after about 4 months of picketing, the bakery owners agreed to a new contract. Not one moment after the dust settled, I watched as some comrades in the labor front group debriefed with the leading women of the strike. They summed up their struggles and congratulated them on their victory—then came the million-dollar question: they asked if they and the other strikers would join the front group. With the briefest millisecond of hesitation, the woman representing the strikers tilted her head down, gently maintained eye contact, and through a slight grit of her teeth, dryly obliged with a rote “…Yes.”

Upon reflection shortly afterward, I realized that the tone of the conversation left me feeling puzzled. Due to my general inexperience at the time, I simply chalked it up to politics; you scratch someone’s back, they scratch yours. I was witnessing comrades with decades of experience at work, so I decided it was unwise to question them. It hadn’t struck me as anything meaningful until years after the fact when I asked myself: what if she had said no? Or even worse: what if her reluctant Yes was, for all intents and purposes, a No for communism?

They would have been well within their rights to refuse to join the front. The strikers were under no real obligation from those who volunteered their aid on the line—except for the factor of social scripting. In a haphazard twist of fate, duress was once again imposed upon these women, only this time with the pressure of spoken word rather than violence. While I did not personally maintain relations with most of the strike leaders, I can only assume at some point that those in the front group would sheepishly reveal themselves to be communists, as if the strikers could not infer from the moment we stepped onto the picket that these one or two dozen men who randomly appeared one day were likely looking to get something out of an implicit tit-for-tat exchange: their political subscription, which arguably must have felt more like an indebted fealty. Yet it would be hardly surprising if those women simply went back to anticipation of the next election to see which Democrat would, hopefully, be truthful enough to further support their interests in office.

What I learned after reflecting on the experience much later was that the paltry attempt at our own political conquests was at best circumventing and at worst suppressing the organic thought of the political subjects whose identity we claimed to carry as a banner. Can the proletariat truly emerge when it does not arrive at a new consciousness from critical engagement with their subjective universe, but instead is fed ideas hand-to-mouth? This leaves zero room for the development of class leadership.

The two examples given here are different facets of the same issue. To embody the subcultural attitude is to treat the political subject as a historical actor that will materialize into a class of leaders while effectively treating them as obedient submissives who lack independent desires. While ‘left’ subculture seeks an aggressively maximalist ‘shock jock’ route to awakening workers with zero tolerance for ‘liberalism’, the ‘right’ subculture understands how disconcerting this can be. It instead takes an apprehensively delicate and deceptive approach, slowly attempting to raise the radical temperature over time. A ‘right’ subcultural socialist can be thought of as someone who is merely scheming for the perfect time to reveal that they are an ultraleftist.

What the subcultural socialists share in similarity is their sense of entitlement to political fealty, on the basis that they are the possessors of a Marxist ‘truth’ to be sanctimoniously prostrated before, whether or not people realize it yet. Even if they disagree with each other on how to get there, they would much prefer that the proletariat cease its foolish struggles to take up pursuits and cultural markers that only they deem worthy—often those of dead traditions that fell out of mass relevance long ago—instead of what the millions have already decided is relevant! Both sides of subculture dehumanize and objectify those who must fundamentally be engaged with as subjects. Both sides disregard the sociological significance of what it means to create leadership. Both sides have an egregious lack of empathy. Both sides will fail and end up either phasing out of mass political consciousness or surrendering the fight due to a resentful contempt for the proletariat.

These anecdotes are emblematic of the subcultural trap: a self-contained, ideologically incestuous sociopolitical ecosystem of objectifying pseudo-‘praxis’ that structurally reproduces its own marginality. It is arguably the primary reason why the left has enjoyed almost zero political relevance since the Reagan Administration up until recent years. It stifles the ability to ask hard questions that cause us to rethink our positions, consider others’ perspectives, and necessarily evolve with a world constantly in flux. There is no greater path towards self-destruction and political marginality than the products that this trap foments.

Winners and Losers

Because the historical moment we live in right now contains a dispersed proletariat occupying a diverse spectrum of racial, gender, and sexual identities, the culture of the country we live in today, 62 years after the Civil Rights Act, cannot possibly be subsumed by the political logic of a so-called working-class “tradition”—especially when that tradition was largely limited in scope to the perspective of cisheteronormative European heritage found within the proletariat. To overcome this, the actors involved in our history must become politically agentified through the recognition, emphasis, embracing, and blending of the multicultural avenues existing today.

I have stated as much several times in jest, but I truly believe what should now be obvious: you would get far more cultural recognition, mutually identified perspectives, and overall more human connection if you blasted Not Like Us (as recently victorious Michigan congressional hopeful Donovan McKinney demonstrated) at a major political rally than if you played Solidarity Forever. Yet, the subcultural sect of activists insists that doing things such as playing old songs written over a century ago is somehow reflective of contemporary social life. Let’s call a spade a spade; it is an ignorant attempt at establishing a political rapport. In reality, it is almost off-putting (not even offensive, but dismissed, not salient) to the overwhelming majority of the population, as it has no organic bearing on its modern problems or culture. They cling to this position so relentlessly that it makes one suspect this milieu acts as a central component of their political strategy rather than a fettering byproduct of a virus that infects the totality of their work—an especially ridiculous notion to defend when considering that DSA's success thus far can almost entirely be attributed to major mainstream political campaigns focused on speaking to the masses and bringing them forward where they are.

Zohran Mamdani is one such example who has clearly used minimally “socialist” demarcating symbols and signifiers in his campaign work, focusing instead on the cultural elements of his constituents that are already popular. In gaining power through this wave of populism, he has enabled DSA to further push the ideological needle on making democratic socialism popular by reforming its mass conception to one that is associated with his cultural and social awareness—thus pulling off a near-flawless execution of agentification. Before he achieved his stunning victory, some thought that Mamdani was too explicitly ‘socialist’, rationalizing his inevitable downfall as justification to support Brad Lander and avoid splitting the vote. For others, Mamdani not being ‘socialist’ enough while in office has been a form of betrayal that warrants bringing him to heel and handing down discipline so that he obeys the will of DSA. Both notions further prove that the common point of unity for the subcultural socialists is rooted in overwriting the latent feelings of the millions, both in the sense that they possess their own independent desires, and that those desires can be interdependently reoriented towards new ends. Rather than just his identification as a ‘democratic socialist’, it is how those who came to identify themselves through Mamdani that has led to their agentification—it is the people who make him a winner.

The subculture mindset leaks into nearly all forms of political thought in the DSA, and it is actively stunting the development of critical consciousness in the organization, further preventing its ability to innovate new methods of growth and reach. I will not mince words—this is loser behavior. Not just in the pejorative sense, but a literal one. This is the socialist flavor of “Trump Always Chickens Out” or “Pokemon Go-To-The-Polls.” It is an out-of-touch, tone-deaf type of political engagement that only seeks dominion, self-gratification, and victory on its own terms.

A rancid bile rises in my stomach when I hear Chuck Schumer or Hillary Clinton talk in this vomit-inducing way. It is the natural human response to objectification—to treating listeners like objects rather than real individuals. It is hardly a stretch to imagine that those new to the movement or those who have socialism shoved down their throat in the same objectifying manner also feel this repulsion.

All that’s been said is not to be mistaken for stating that singing songs together or having customs is simply “cringe”; far be it from me to say that we shouldn't cultivate a culture. Nor should it be interpreted as a liquidationist plea to abandon the crucial lessons that Marxist-Leninists have painstakingly learned over the decades. As a matter of fact, I believe the opposite—we should be producing cultural landmarks, symbols, and rituals out of our daily lives, and a hell of a lot more than we currently do. And, in fact, this is the lesson of historical communism—that communism must always be contextualized and concretized for every particular revolution. It was those who forged new symbols of their practice instead of desperately clinging to the old ones who became the victors of history. I want us to go down in the textbooks as the communist movement that trailblazed new paths, rather than a movement of an antiquated society that fades into irrelevance because they could not see where the wind was blowing. If we are to meet the popular moment, we are far past due to molt this foul skin.

To this I say: death to subculture. Embrace the people's spirit of modernity, abandon dead traditions, and walk among the millions. I want to be a winner. Do you?