Slavoj Zizek: The Failure of the Left – Why the Right is Winning the Working Class

The rise of right-wing populism exposes the failure of left-wing strategies. Time for a radical rethink. A guest article.

Walter Benjamin is credited with saying, "Behind every fascism stands a failed revolution." This statement (which I have referred to at least ten times myself) naturally suggests itself as a formula for explaining persistent conservative populism (not just Trump 's): Hegemonic liberal democracy failed to address the unease of the silent majority of the working class—a class that did not recognize itself in the issues of multiculturalism, wokeness, and identity politics. Neo-fascist populists seized on this void and presented themselves as the voice of the working class exploited by the liberal elite.

But this formula falls short on one crucial point: It doesn't answer the central riddle—why did the revolution fail? That is, why did the new right, and not the left, succeed in capturing the anger and rage of many so-called "ordinary people"? Recently, it has become quite popular to blame theory (philosophy)—it has failed to offer the exploited majority a viable political program capable of mobilizing the people.

Otto Paans (in his otherwise very astute analysis) : Academics working within an ideological framework and devoting themselves to largely predetermined research topics—such as multiculturalism, enlightened light atheism, and simplified egalitarianism—cannot be expected to develop viable political alternatives to current social demands. No wonder that enlightened light left-liberals, and especially professional academic philosophers, were completely blindsided by Trump's election victory: they had not even remotely considered a relapse into a neo-fascist dictatorship. [...] Professional academic philosophy has a moral duty to undertake a radical change of course, because the absence of a genuine, serious philosophy reduces the chances of real political change or resistance to intellectual dictatorship—be it in its politically correct or its neo-fascist form—to virtually zero.

The Left in the loop: Radical demands, but nothing to say?

Simple and convincing—but isn't Paans' demand a persistent theme (of what remains of today's radical left)? Paans cites Adorno and Horkheimer as great authorities—but did they themselves provide a more consistent answer? In one of his late short texts, Adorno gives a clear answer to the question, "What shall we do today?"—namely, "I don't know." And isn't Paans' own text exactly the same? He insists that "professional academic philosophy" should present a concrete program without even remotely suggesting what that program might look like. Ultimately, only two options remain: the "realistic" pragmatism of left-liberal Third Way politics and—from circles connected to the Third World—a rehabilitation of "actually existing socialism" (even to the point of a new, more positive evaluation not only of Mao but also of Stalin). In this view, the original sin of Western Marxism was that it lost contact with the revolutionary movements outside the developed capitalist countries.

My position here is precisely the opposite: Western Marxism was absolutely right to reject any continuity with "actually existing socialism," which was, overall, a colossal failure—economically, it only functioned by integrating elements of capitalism. Our only realistic option, therefore, is to fully acknowledge this lack of a real alternative—that stagnation that was powerfully expressed in a message I recently received from a young friend in Japan (online name: Cabin):

"I'd like to know if you noticed the recent Japanese upper house election. The far-right party "参政党" [Editor's note: Sanseitō Party (Political Participation Party)] achieved an unprecedented victory, winning 14 seats. According to the statistics, the majority of voters are from the younger generation. The far right has gained enormous momentum among young people by spreading rumors about foreigners and other topics on social media with a large number of paid posters. At the same time, sincere but aging leftists—men and women in their seventies and eighties—are standing on the streets of Kyoto in the fierce heat, giving speeches and spreading their ideas, but with little effect. What do you think about this role reversal? Has the world grown old? How should we young people deal with this situation? Has there ever been a phase like this in history? To be honest, I almost don't believe the world can be changed anymore." I almost feel that people in today's capitalist society have been overindulged—and as a result, have become fragile, short-sighted, and extreme. Ultimately, they provide an ideal breeding ground for the rise of the far right. I feel like these old leftists on the streets of Kyoto, who still genuinely believe they can change the world, are 'much younger' than I am. What are we young people supposed to do in such a situation? For the next few years, I will be living and studying in Japan. Faced with this political shift to the right, I feel a sense of powerlessness—where could I escape to? There is no new continent for us anymore."

Revolution without a future: No alternative – and still act

Yes, we should fully accept the conclusion: There is nowhere left to flee to, no new continent still waiting for us. In the film "Munich: In the Face of War" (2021), when someone tries to convince a German diplomat plotting to kill Hitler that violent resistance accomplishes nothing and that one should instead cling to endless negotiations that keep hope alive, the German diplomat retorts: "Hope means waiting for someone else to do it. We would all be much better off without it."

This is precisely what I meant with the title of my book (borrowed from a text by Giorgio Agamben), "The Courage to Be Hopeless": True radical politics resembles Dante's Hell, at whose entrance hangs a sign reading: "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate"—usually translated as: "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." It is ridiculous to blame academic philosophy for this hopelessness: The situation itself, as we experience it, offers no perspective. Radical change is necessary, but at the same time—in our reality—impossible.

After the Stalinist turn, communist revolutions were based on a clear conception of historical reality ("scientific socialism"), its laws, and tendencies. Despite all its unpredictable twists and turns, the revolution was firmly anchored in this historical process—as it was often said, socialism was to be established in each country according to its particular conditions, but in accordance with general historical laws.

Theoretically, this deprived the revolution of its true dimension of subjectivity, those radical breaks with reality that intervene in the structure of "objective reality"—in stark contrast to the French Revolution, whose most radical protagonists understood it as an open process without the support of a higher necessity. Saint-Just wrote in 1794: "Those who make revolutions resemble the first navigator who relies only on his courage." ("Those who make revolutions are like the first navigator who relies only on his courage.")

No more islands: Universalism as a political imperative

Today, even more than in Lenin's time, we are moving in unexplored territory, without a global cognitive map – but what if it is precisely this lack of such a map that prevents us from falling into a totalitarian standstill?

What our situation demands is clear: Universalism must be an indispensable component of every left—if for no other reason, then simply because today's "late capitalist" society (a frequently used label that says little in itself and rather documents our ignorance) is globally interconnected to a previously unimagined extent. Without repeating the obvious examples—the global environmental threat, the consequences of artificial intelligence, the looming social instability, and the risk of military self-destruction—it should suffice to point out that even former state monopolies are now part of international trade. Trump has repeatedly threatened to transfer American prisoners abroad to serve their sentences —most recently with the threat of sending those charged with vandalism of Tesla to Ecuador.

This is how you can serve your prison sentence in a country where the crime you were convicted of isn't a crime! Ghana and Serbia were preparing to sign a groundbreaking memorandum on labor mobility that would allow Ghanaian workers to benefit from Serbia's 100,000 work permit program this year. (The agreement was later rescinded.)

Something similar happened in 1970, when East Germany imported thousands of Vietnamese workers—with a portion of their wages retained by the state. Once again, workers are being "sold" by the state to another state... North Korea took this logic to the extreme, essentially selling thousands of soldiers to Russia, where they fight on the front lines and die en masse. (Wouldn't it be much more appropriate for North Korea to sell its workforce to South Korea, which doesn't have enough of it? For ideological reasons, that's obviously impossible...)

So how should we act in such a confusing global situation? I'm taking a risk and presenting what I can't help but call my realistic utopia. (I owe this idea to a conversation with Nico Graack.) Day-to-day operations would best be handled by reasonably conservative forces—they are pragmatic enough to avoid excessive risks and always willing to consider that even the best projects can fail. In short, they know that political actors must take full responsibility: A true politician should never say, "I meant well, but unfortunate circumstances ruined everything."

But such an approach is not enough to deal with the prospect of inevitable catastrophes that threaten all of humanity—therefore, a kind of new Leninist elite is needed, a group whose main task is not to hatch old-fashioned communist dreams, but to prepare us all for the impending catastrophes, that is, to keep us alert and aware that we are approaching a global emergency.

So my utopia is a silent alliance between moderate conservatives who control day-to-day affairs and a Leninist elite that is preparing us for imminent collapse—but I know full well that both actors are increasingly disappearing from the political scene today. Moderate conservatives are being swept away by the Trump populists, while what's left of the radical left is trapped in a deceptive pacifist utopianism.

Even if this crazy dream is all too utopian, what should we do? My answer is principled pragmatism. We must focus on central goals that ensure our survival, and anything that serves those goals is permissible —democracy when it works; authoritarian state control when necessary; popular mobilization when needed; even a degree of terror when the situation is truly desperate.

Split: The right did what the left should have done

Here's a simple, recent example: Our media reported on two initiatives to establish a new political party. First, Elon Musk announced his intention to found a new political party—just weeks after his dramatic falling out with US President Donald Trump: " The billionaire announced on his social media platform X that he had founded the America Party, which is positioned as a challenge to the two-party system of Republicans and Democrats. However, it is unclear whether the party has been formally registered with the US electoral authorities." Musk, who was born outside the US and is therefore not eligible to run for US president, did not name who would lead the party. This news is sad because the right has once again done what the left should have done.

The left wing of the Democratic Party ( Bernie Sanders , AOC [Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Left Wing of the Democratic Party, ed.]) should split from the rotting carcass of the party and form a new party. So is it good news that in the UK Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn have announced the formation of a new left-wing party? There is no name yet - "Arise" and "The Collective" have been mentioned as possible names. Corbyn is said to like the term "Real Change", but not necessarily as a party name. The idea is to mobilize the large pool of left-wing voters who have been excluded or alienated from the Labour Party by Starmer.

This project looks promising—according to some polls, around half of Labour voters are willing to give their vote to the new party—but uncertainty remains. There is no one-size-fits-all answer: sometimes you should try to take over a major leading party; sometimes a split is necessary. That's why the news about new parties is sad: What works better is how Trump reclaimed the Republican Party, or how Corbyn won over the Labour Party a few years ago, shaking up the entire establishment.

In his “Notes Towards a Definition of Culture,” the great conservative thinker T.S. Eliot made an oft-quoted remark: There are times when the only choice is between heresy and unbelief—and when the only way to keep a religion alive is to split off from the dead main body in a sectarian breach.

Lenin did this with regard to traditional Marxism, Mao in his own way, and Deng again with Mao—all with mixed results. Today, the left has not yet dared to take this step—it was Trump who made the heretical break with global neoliberalism.

Here, too, we should not be afraid of contact – we must be prepared to take issues like patriotism and the defense of our specific way of life, including family life, from our political opponents…

So what we need is a heresy—but one that works. A heresy with the prospect of hegemony, not a new micro-party that prides itself on telling the truth even though no one is listening. Not a party that trembles in every election about whether it'll even make it back into parliament.

Do you have feedback? Write to us! [email protected]