The left has become ingrained in capitalism itself. As Mark Fisher puts it: “After all, and as Žižek has provocatively pointed out, anti-capitalism is widely disseminated in capitalism. Time after time, the villain in Hollywood films will turn out to be the 'evil corporation”. (Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism, chapter 2, page 16). The biting critiques of the situationists, and before that the frankfurtian critical theory has been replaced by pink capitalism (capitalism that is pretending to care about minorities, but is actually harming them) and infighting. There is no more suspicion of authority structures anymore. In fact, while we claim to oppose capitalism and the state, we are encouraging it, making us part of the Capitalist Realist system.
We can discover the roots of this pseudo-leftism in the emergence of the New Left in the mid-1960s, prioritizing struggles of identity (which are important but are executed sloppily) over class struggle, and watering down their philosophy in order to appeal to the working-class everyman.
This dilemma has a problem, however. The working-class everyman, nowadays, is conservative and right-wing, as is the common case in rural settings. How do we change that? How do we make the working-class everyman more leftist, or at least open-minded? What happens if the working-class everyman, who watches fox news and holds discriminatory views of trans people, attends a Marxist union? He probably either leaves in disgust or tries to convince people that it’s not capitalism that needs to be fought, but Crony Capitalism (a differentiation without a difference, as all capitalism is crony capitalism).
We shouldn’t demonize him, nor should we just label him as a trump supporter, but listen to his arguments. The Dirtbag Left approach of making fun of our enemies (a word that’s pretty ill-suited, but works well for this case) is all well and good, but should we really rely on those tactics alone? The answer is, well, we don’t know. We can psychoanalyze the conservative worker and his fear of “the left” (incorrectly calling neoliberals and Dems leftists). Pink Capitalism, and how it affects people could have an answer.
Pink Capitalism has a faux-revolutionary appeal for some modern-day non-cishets (Trans people, non-binary people, xenogendered people, etc.). They want to adapt to cishet culture, wearing a mask hiding their true selves from view, instead of being themselves. They dress in ways that the hivemind, who works in labels (weirdcore, dreamcore, dark academia, alt-kid, etc.) that fit themselves but are also secretly benefitting the Spectacle (the business, entertainment, and propaganda aim of capitalism, Mass Media essentially). Their brain is being affected by how they, as a trans person, should think and feel about certain things, because Pink Capitalism wraps over it, and inserts things like fandoms, communities (shtwt and obslovetwt for example), etc. into the brain, until they’re consumed by these cultures, effectively basing their personality and what makes them human around these things.
Take obslovetwt for example. Obslovetwt is a community that centers around the archetype of the yandere (as shown in modern-day romantic/thriller anime.) Their members are people who have delved inside them, modeling their personality around it. A good example of this is the Twitter accounts @armuhaige, @obsessedkitty_, @dollyorgans, and @stlvkerstango. I’m not going to get into them individually, but they each occupy the psychogeographic history of obsessive love, as caused by BPD.
One of the reasons why the Left of Suspicion was created, is to analyze these in an anti-pseudo-progressivist, and anti-capitalist way. We take from the social and political theory of Moldbug, as well as many strains of leftist thought like (as I previously mentioned in this essay) Situationism, and Critical Theory. The Left of Suspicion also believes that there is hidden meaning in each text and that this hidden meaning can be subjective.
The hidden meaning adapts over time to each persons changing viewpoint. For example, one could change their beliefs from Marxist to neoliberal, and their own hidden meaning of Marx (as he changed some of his philosophy all his life. For example, he went from praising Max Stirner, even calling him and Engels egoists, to severely critiquing him in The German Ideology, pejoratively calling him Saint Max) could change from savior of the people to tyrannical murderer. It’s the psychoanalysis of the viewpoint, as it stands in progressive capitalism.
The reason why Curtis Yarvin, also known as Mencius Moldbug, is useful here is his theories of the Cathedral, and Patchwork.
However, we disagree on who rules the Cathedral. It isn’t progressive, as capitalism is inherently right-wing, socially, but adapts to left-wing causes in order to destroy it from within, but it’s centrist in the way that it attacks radical movements of all stripes. Simply put: as long as the Cathedral exists, anti-establishment right-wing (as well as left-wing) movements will exist.
What we take from Patchwork, is the sense of communities going into Patches, connecting to each other like cells, as panarchial societies are known to do. Panarchy is a preferred solution to the unitaryism of the Cathedral and the Spectacle because it is anti-capitalistic in its flexibility. Capital is not flexible or stable, that’s why it’s inherent contradictions need to be hastened in order for it to collapse.
After all, “nothing ever dies from contradictions” (Giles Deleuze) alone. It needs a euthanasia kit in order for it to die once and for all, in order for a Patchwork society, as inherently nomadic as is, to be established.
The Left of Suspicion is a mix of NRx thought, and Situationist-Critical theory thought. We are Left-NRx and accelerationist (in the style of CCRU-style L/Acc) We are progressive but traditional. We are trans (i’m a trans girl myself), cis, white, black, Jew, gentile, disabled, able-bodied, and we’re against the Cathedral because it ruins us from the inside with its capitalistic guidelines.
The Hidden Meaning is yours to choose.
So what will you choose?
1. You say that anticapitalism has become embedded in capitalism, but you refuse to examine what exactly anticapitalist capitalism is. The anticapitalism disseminated within capitalism invariably takes the opposite approach to the traditional socialist - or true anticapitalist - angle in media: society is first portrayed as evil and greedy, but then we learn it is possible to get along. The socialist (true anticapitalist) view is the reverse: things seem fine on the surface, but underneath are layers of exploitation, imperialism, etc. To simply deliver a blanket statement that all anticapitalism is incorrigibly feeding the system is in part nonsense and in whole pessimistic without neccesity.
2. Mark Fisher wrote on k-punk: "...difference is not suppressed by the established order, it is its banal currency. Fragmentation, deconstruction, cut-up are the very stuff of which mediocracy is made."
You even seem to accept this in part when you describe how anticapitalism becomes embedded in capitalism. However, you immediately contradict yourself so you can bring in moldbug. "Patchwork" is precisely the fragmented reality capitalism thrives on. Your biggest mistake is in thinking that the current order is large, centralized, and monolithic; your second biggest mistake is in believing that diversity of living, difference, etc. are anticapitalist - they are merely the "banal currency" of the established order.
3. You have a preoccupation with creating neologisms that refer to nothing. "Left of Suspicion" is frighteningly uninteresting, useless, and not unique - the same is true for "Left-NRx." It largely seems like an excuse to flex how you read right-wing material (how scary!) even while it adds nothing to your ideas or to political economy in general.