How Should Socialists Respond to Cancel Culture Discourse?
Analyzing cancel culture from a socialist perspective
Caveat: I think this is a mostly meaningless exercise, that I am mostly just doing for myself. This is a pretty meaningless issue considering the state we’re in with the miserable government response to the pandemic and the fight against police brutality throughout the country. I will say I do not think I have anything unique or useful to add to these conversations. We know both these issues and the struggles with them tie into the fact the left does not have its own independent institutions ready to create or obtain power, and the path to doing so is incredibly difficult. Writing about it is not going to get us there any quicker. The obvious answer would be to get involved in labor and left wing organizing and build local power first, a difficult endeavor unto its own. That should occupy us for a while.
A Mangled, Bad Faith Discourse
Talking about “cancel culture” is essentially impossible to do on Twitter, as there are one thousand different definitions combined with assumptions of bad faith on various ends. But I do believe that by walking through the different camps, definitions, interests and dynamics, we can come to understanding the topic in a way that socialists can have a clear position. I believe the first step we have to take is analyzing the state of free speech in the country as it’s so connected to the concept of cancel culture.
Free Speech is almost entirely nonexistent in the country simply because of an at will employment system and there is a nonexistent welfare state. The amount of time the government itself is threatening your speech is relatively rare occurrences in your day to day life. This is not to say the government hasn’t infringed on speech, as police have routinely waged war upon protesters against police brutality. Free Speech as a legal concept part of the 1st Amendment has been used to allow the wealthy ruling class to continue to buy most elections through the Citizen’s United system.
What Is and Isn’t Cancel Culture?
The definition of cancel culture is ever shifting, of what is “real” cancel culture and what isn’t. I think it’s important to start at what the baseline concept of cancel culture is and then analyze what examples fall underneath it. Cancel Culture at its base, is a mass of people calling for an end of support to a celebrity figure, often for past problematic comments regarding race, gender, or another social issue. This could culminate in an apology and the controversy dies down, or the celebrity could suffer career losses depending on the level of backlash and status of the celebrity. In some instances, celebrities are cancelled because of violent, abusive or criminal behavior
From here, there really is no common definition of what is and isn’t cancel culture. Some would believe that cancel culture is primarily when people are unjustly punished as a result of an online mob(which can then tie into whether you believe cancel culture is real or not). Cancel culture also now is seemingly applying to regular people, as now everyone has a phone camera and we see racist interactions are leading to people being fired from their jobs.
Lately, cancel culture has seemed to envelope the media and academic world, where various groups of left and right wing forces try to get their ideological opponents fired or removed from their current job. Sometimes similar but not exactly cases get lumped in, like when James Bennett resigned after staff backlash from publishing Tom Cotton but coincided with public backlash. Being cancelled itself in this scenario can simply range from there being a degree of social acceptance amongst a circle that a person is “bad” and no longer listened to or supported to being fired. Censorship is also lumped inside of this category, like when large companies like Facebook and Youtube remove Alex Jones from their platforms.
There are a few examples that I think are included as part of cancel culture, that might have a tangential relationship but should not be included as part of this definition. MeToo is sometimes lumped into cancel culture, MeToo is not a result of sudden online criticism, but of specific individuals being harmed by an abuser and coming forward. Harvey Weinstein, as an example, was not cancelled or a result of cancel culture.
While AOC uses “cancelled” in quotes here , sometimes cancellation is applied to various political ideologies that have been marginalized from society by state and capital forces. While it’s true these political ideologies are the most censored and deprived of large platforms, this is simply a separate issue from cancelling. Later, we will talk about why the definition of cancel culture is increasingly being expanded.
So what should we consider as part of cancel culture?
Cancel culture is an unorganized online collective that calls for the boycott, firing, and an end of support for a celebrity, media, or public figure as a result of views contradictory to those of the group. Most often these views tend to be conservative or reactionary on issues of race, gender, sex or other social issues. It can also be a result of abusive behavior or practices. Cancel Culture is being used here as a value neutral term, ie: it is not being used on the basis of whether someone did or did not deserve to be cancelled. To be cancelled is to face a negative material or substantial social consequence as a direct result of the campaign. Being criticized but keeping your job or position or generally keeping your social status is not being cancelled.
Who Can Be Cancelled?
It’s important to talk about why cancel culture is limited in who it affects. Specifically, it almost entirely goes after people who are employees of some kind. While celebrities do not operate on the same level as maybe a random person in a viral video getting fired, they ultimately share a position of having their employment contingent on a higher up. Cancel culture works on those that can be considered expendable to bosses, employers, corporations or similar level partnerships. The moment one of these entities sees the costs of keeping these people around as greater than the benefit, they are discarded. So what matters about who is cancelled is not exactly the level of the offense, but whether an employer or equivalent doesn’t see a benefit in keeping this person on anymore.
While media does give a certain level of power, it should be noted that most media cancellations are not to upper echelon figures like a Tucker Carlson or other cable news hosts. This is representative of the fact there is a power threshold where cancel culture loses its bite. This also expands to celebrities, like Kanye, who was never cancelled for being a Trump supporter due to how successful and large a platform he had built for himself. And politicians themselves cannot be cancelled as they occupy a similar or even greater level of power.
Under the definition of cancel culture set earlier, we recognize that even amongst that category of people targeted to be cancelled, it is clearly dependent on the power dynamic at play. The offense itself can be a factor, but power is primarily what determines who gets and can be cancelled.
Why is the Definition Expanding?
There is an attempt to expand the scope of cancel culture from multiple ideological standpoints, and within those ideologies from critics and proponents. The unified reasoning for every person is that politics in the United States on the national level is almost entirely waged on the grounds of a culture war. Even dire material issues like the pandemic and police brutality are absorbed into this context. So, it’s only natural that to get people to care about your issue, trying to relate it to cancel culture is the best way to get people to take a position.
Some people have said that Colin Kaepernick got cancelled, and thus those that think cancel culture is bad (usually conservative leaning people) should realize those who are cancelled have opposing politics. This is understandable, a means of trying people to understand racial justice through the lens of cancel culture. Now this is also used to get proponents of cancel culture to realize that it is not a one-sided weapon and can be deployed against people they like.
On the other end, you have the expansion on behalf of various centrist and conservative forces via the now infamous Harper’s open letter. The letter itself is so incredibly vague that it is designed to get anyone to agree with it and thus include it in this ever-growing umbrella of condemning cancel culture. This is to make cancel culture completely synonymous with criticism and specifically allowing various stances into mainstream acceptance, like the transphobia of JK Rowling, or the war crime assisting David Frum. There is an assumption of bad faith here because the material interests of the vast number of signees are to protect themselves and their power. While someone like Rowling is above being cancelled due to her wealth, there are many that reside in an ominous middle ground, swaying between vulnerability and immunity.
Of course, there is no call to action related to at will employment or a strong welfare state that would be the biggest possible way to protect free speech in the workplace and other environments. They do not acknowledge what the state of free speech is in the United States because ultimately this is about protecting a niche professional class interest. It is an attempt to flatten criticism with cancellation. And the combination of this expanding definition of cancel culture makes it impossible to begin to debate whether it is good or bad. Rather than try to expand what fits under cancel culture, socialists should stick to our understanding of the world by recognizing what is a consequence of capitalism, white supremacy, imperialism and related systems and ideologies, rather than a consequence of cancel culture.
A Pointless Question. Is Cancel Culture Useful?
This is where discussions about cancel culture begin to unravel, and why there is seemingly no answer to if cancel culture is good or bad (which is tied into its existence). Its apparent that by the definition set earlier, cancel culture certainly exists. One element that is almost never discussed is why has cancel culture manifested into such a significant force?
This can be traced to a society where powerful people suffer no consequences for committing egregious crimes. We can look at large events like the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, Great Recession and how the architects of these crimes against humanity went untouched. Only recently with MeToo has there been an attempt at holding powerful figures accountable for sexual violence committed. Figures like Harvey Weinstein and Jeffery Epstein were let loose for decades among their victims, often referred to as “worst kept secrets” among those in their circles. There is no accountability in any sector in American society for anyone with a semblance of power bestowed by the ruling class.
Cancel culture has a limited scope and ability, so it lashes out at those it is capable of, as unorganized as lightning strikes. Because of this limit and lack of organization it can never truly solve the problem that it manifests from. Accountability and consequence for the devastation that has been wrought is necessary and just, but it is a goal that cancel culture will never succeed. It is also important to note that there have been clear misses in who has been cancelled, like Ben Mora former staffer of the Bernie Sanders campaign.
To condemn a lightning strike is simply pointless though. But cancel culture is not organized, you cannot get people to just agree to stop, the internet is too vast. To condemn it on the grounds of trying to protect free speech is foolish, as its threat to it is enabled by the existence of at will employment, not because of unruly internet mobs. To condemn it on a case by case basis is similarly silly, there is no tribunal determining who will be cancelled and who will not be. There is no logic as to who will end up going viral on any given day.
This does make the reverse true as well. Being a proponent of something because it might occasionally impact someone that a socialist doesn’t like or is an enemy of the project, leads to creating contradictory and nonsensical positions like “Cancel culture isn’t real, but when it does happen it’s good.” There is nothing that can be built on. It also can end up sating desire for real systemic change, as well as keep people engrossed in what happens online to give a false sense of accomplishing something when the system largely remains in place.
Another thing that proponents do not contend with, or outright disagree with, is their stance on media outlets. The New York Times is not bad because Tom Cotton gets to write a hideous column, or that they have editors like James Bennett. The New York Times is bad because it is the New York Times. Prominent media outlets like this, CNN, Fox News, and the Washington posts, are organs of a capitalist state. No number of good, well-meaning people can change that it is designed to be opposed to our political position and program.
Cancel culture is not useful to socialists, but our response to it should not be simply to take a stance on whether it is good or bad, but to respond with a solution that addresses the need that led to its existence.
A Synthesis for Socialists
Let us summarize everything succinctly before we arrive at the socialist response.
1. Free Speech is nearly non-existent in our society due to the nature of at will employment as well as a non-existent welfare state. Its codification through the 1st Amendment in many cases is not compatible with Socialism.
2. Cancel Culture is an unorganized online collective that calls for the boycott, firing, and an end of support for a celebrity, media, or public figure as a result of views contradictory to those of the group. Cancel Culture is value neutral, ie: its name and definition are not dependent on whether you approve of who it happens to and whether they suffer consequences or not.
3. To be cancelled is to face a negative material or substantial social consequence as a direct result of the campaign. Being criticized but keeping your job or position or generally keeping your social status is not being cancelled.
4. Cancel culture works on those that can be considered expendable to bosses, employers, corporations or similar level partnerships. The moment one of these entities sees the costs of keeping these people around as greater than the benefit, they are discarded. So what matters about who is cancelled is not exactly the level of the offense, but whether an employer or equivalent doesn’t see a benefit in keeping this person on anymore.
5. The definition of cancel culture is expanding because national US political conflict is waged on almost entirely cultural grounds. To include your issue under cancel culture is an attempt to give it more attention in the discourse. This is done by both critics and proponents of cancel culture and by people and interests that socialists both support and oppose.
6. Cancel culture is a phenomenon because of a lack of accountability and consequence for massive material suffering and harm inflicted, this lack exists in every sector of U.S. society.
7. Cancel culture is useless to socialists, but it is pointless to champion AND condemn, because it is unorganized, limited in who it applies to, gives a false sense of accomplishment, and is uncontrollable.
What socialists can do is take the state of free speech in our society, the complete absence of accountability, and put forth rhetoric and changes to institutions that address these needs. To protect free speech, advocating an end to at will employment and building a safety net so when firing does happen, it is not a death sentence. Socialists care about the health of the collective, we are not trying to create a society based around absolute free speech protection. To create accountability and consequence is going to require a fundamental change in U.S. institutions, an upending of what we currently know as our society needs to happen, dismantling of state media enterprises, seizing of bank assets from Wall Street and more. On a smaller scale, restorative justice process’ will need to be created to solve interpersonal or community harms.
This is not to say that a socialist society is going to ruthlessly throw away those not adhering to a political ideology, and it also is not going to be one where no one consequences will come to a racist. Justice comes from dismantling systems that shielded powerful people from accountability, taking their means of accomplishing it and not allowing them in a position of hierarchy. Bigoted behavior and remarks must be confronted, but under a framework of it damages a collective that very person is also a part of and should be invested in.
This gives us a systemic and materialist critique of cancel culture that provides a response and solution to those distressed about accountability, and discerning whether critics of cancel culture are concerned about its efficacy or just protecting their own professional cliques. This response and approach allow us to discern good and bad faith arguments around the issue as well. Getting people to buy into this as more than just theory brings us full circle at what the most pressing need for socialists is: getting organized and disciplined to acquire power needed to dismantle these institutions. If our solution is the dismantling of a capitalist, white supremacist empire, we need to have that correspond with our actions. Anything less is to let people fall into the void.
