a short review (so far) of ben burgis' canceling comedians while the world burns

cancel culture is real, not new + is it all social media wars?

I am not done reading this book (I am now at the chapter discussing the social media phenomena known as “tankies”) but I wanted to share some of my first impressions of this book by Ben Burgis, professor and host of Give Them An Argument, a popular YouTube show focused on left politics and discussion.

First of all, I’d like to say thar I do find value in some of Burgis’ work. Some of his articles discussing labor issues, as well as international politics are usually aligned with mine, and most importantly, veer away from sloganeering and instead, seek to discuss the issue at-hand logically and rooted in facts. For instance, his piece discussing the contradictions of labor organizing and progressive campaigning was extremely enlightening and served as a reminder that not all worker organizing is inherently positive. Some may take issue with this conclusion but one cursory review of history will find evidence for this, given the instances of white workers organizing against black workers being hired, or even workers in certain Latin American countries serving as pawns for conservative agendas, i.e. right-leaning trade union activity that went against the democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile (which created the conditions for a U.S.-backed neofascist coup).

In the end, Burgis is someone willing to push ahead with insight that may not always jibe with what people on the Left may expect, but need to clearly know and be confronted with. It’s evident that his analysis can be useful and challenging in a necessary way.

Now, Burgis’ work, Cancelling Comedians While The World Burns: A Critique Of The Contemporary Left, does retain some of this useful analysis that’s been part of his overall work. It is true that parts of the Left have taken an increasingly moralistic turn, chastising people for not being perfect on every issue, nor knowing everything about a topic, etc.

I’ve seen this demonstrated at times within academia and even among organizing circles I’ve been in. I, too, at times have been this person, willing to “call out” someone for not saying the right thing, for not having immediately the correct insight.

This can indeed negatively impact how the Left can organize a social movement and effective pressure for the sake of achieving power. One example of this would be some peoples’ insistence on abolition, or the belief among some that organizing must be done in ways that are spontaneous, and not infected by other more “reformist” concerns, such as electoral activism. Most Americans, including segments of working people of color, may lean left on issues overall but are still very much contradictory as well. For instance, many do express a deep suspicion of the police (as do I as someone who has also been racially profiled multiple times), and desire “change”. Yet, to expect the same group of people to leap into the murky waters of “abolition” would also be a step too far, and thus, push people away from joining movements that would ultimately benefit them long-term.

Burgis is therefore correct in saying the Left must be strategic, and not strictly moralizing (although I’d contend having the moral high ground still matters and can also rejuvenate and inspire). Burgis’ examples include some people on the left’s reaction to comedians, who may express some views popular among the unvarnished masses. Another clarification is needed here. Burgis is not suggesting somehow, comedians are the pinnacle of truth. Instead, comedians may represent commonly held beliefs, and the left reaction (some left reaction I may add) to such comedians can put off a segment of people, who may otherwise think of the Left as nothing more than the morality police ruining peoples’ fun.

Once again, I can somewhat understand this issue. It does matter how the Left carries itself, to be able to appeal to large number of people. As Burgis also relates in another chapter, if the Left cheers on attacks of people like Andy Ngo, this too can leave the impression on some that the Left is a collection of angry misfits out to hurt people.

Fair points made.

But this logic starts to run dry, especially in Burgis’ chapter on the 2019 DSA Convention, where discussion leaders use ASL and other methods of communicating that odious figures like Tucker Carlson would use (clips of the convention were broadcast) to mock the Left. Once again, strategy does matter. If the Left was running around wearing clown costumes everywhere, I think that would be an issue with how we appeal to most people. What issues we choose to organize behind is another chief concern. That said, Burgis’ analysis on this has its own limits.

Firstly, Tucker Carlson, regardless of what convention he’s seeing, will find some way to mischaracterize the Left. That’s literally his goal anyway. Carlson and his most diehard supporters will never ever be convinced in the Left political project, let alone socialist, unless it’s someone like Jimmy Dore willing now to push Covid-19 vaccine conspiracies, etc. that elide with a right-wing agenda. In order for the Left to not be mocked by Carlson, it would mean getting rid of critical concerns, such as politics having to do with the needs of the disabled, and other historically oppressed groups. Although Burgis insists that his issue is not with the use of ASL at the convention (the apparent finger waggling instead of clapping was “silly” to Tucker and even some on the left who have a penchant for sharing in anti-liberal “woke” bashing), it is unfair to suggest that this convention meeting represents a broader issue. What would be the issue? To try and accommodate people of different needs? Yes, maybe it wasn’t done in the best way but it is something worth doing, no?

I want to reiterate here that I haven’t yet completed reading the book but another issue with the text, so far, is that much of its material seems very social media related. I do agree with Burgis that social media does matter, especially in the past few years under the pandemic. People are influenced by Facebook mostly but also by Twitter, etc. and so, these avenues matter. I agree.

However, it’s one thing to insist they matter. It’s quite another to focus on these media as one of the major issues ailing the left. Is it really true that most people are being affected by what they see on Twitter? I believe the number of users on Twitter is far smaller than the number of people using Facebook, and yes, Burgis ties his argument about Left moralizing against comedians to articles written at Slate (or Salon). But again, what is the real impact here? It would be difficult to quantify (and I am too lazy to do it), but is it true that a large number of people would even be aware of such discussions regarding Dave Chapelle or that most conversations would skew in favor of him?

Twitter definitely generates a different crowd, but how does this connect to left organizing in a way that’s material?

The chapter I’m currently is the chapter on “tankies”, which is a derogatory term tossed around by some on the left against others on the left. It is meant to significant leftists who are basically pro-Stalinist, etc. I’m pretty sure I’ve been called this term too, oftentimes because I refuse to fit my politics into a Cold War binary that no longer exists. Not to mention Stalin’s been dead for quite sometime now…

Regardless, the “tankie” issue is very much social media related. I have not come across it in my own organizing circles as much, let alone among friends and family who watch MSNBC all day, or ask me for political insights. Most people, I’d argue, have no clue what a tankie is, nor any interest. Most people, I’d argue, especially during this pandemic, could care less.

Being seen as pro-Stalin would still be seen as a political liability, I’d agree, but is this truly the issue here? Is it truly the issue of moralizing that has weakened the Left? Is it “cancel culture” truly that’s been our grave misstep?

Once again (and sorry for the ramblings here, but this is not meant to be a true review…I plan on writing a more well-thought out response later when I’ve read the book completely), cancel culture in the sense of people being toxic to one another is a problem, but a problem I’d argue is broader than the Left even. Living in the U.S., under all the stress and pressure, leads to people being at each other’s throats, and I’ve seen this in broader society, among liberals, among conservatives obviously, among everyone.

The Left must seek to do better and I agree that includes being far more open to people when they’re willing to join the DSA, or other left-oriented organizations. When someone is willing to take that first step, it is important to give them some grace, to allow them time and knowledge to evolve politically. Yet, there are red lines too. There have to be. If a member, after months of being in an org., refuses to use pronouns, or uses outdated language that causes discomfort, this too can be a grave problem. This can lead to others being pushed away frankly. I’ve seen this happen more often. When organizing in a high-rise, with mostly black female residents, there were male residents who spoke over them, who didn’t listen. Over time, some of the other residents drew away. Similarly, there were tensions between English-speaking residents and Spanish-speaking, with the mainly English-speaking believing the Spanish-speaking ones were aligned with the property owners, who were also Hispanic. Not addressing these real concerns, and in this case, bigotry, hurt us in the long-term.

Based on my own time organizing (or trying), the main issues I’ve seen are usually based in peoples’ time, and money. The Left, including the DSA, lacks a coherent political line nationally, and most of all, money so that chapters can do the work they need to do without worrying about finances. The main issues, basically, has been the usual issues hurting the Left for decades now, the lack of institutions with the resources and coordination that can help us win power at the national level. I’ve yet to encounter issues of “cancel culture” being the major problem.

I want to be clear here: I do believe toxicity and condescension can be problems in organizations like the DSA. But I also believe that the far more significant issues have been money and time and presence. Groups like the DSA, and other groups aligned under the Left, simply do not have the level of relationship one needs in not only lower-income communities in cities even but in suburbia as well. The issue isn’t people are turned off by us. People still don’t know we exist often, or what the heck we stand for to begin with. The DSA itself remains a working class organization but much of it is white, and usually people like me, the downwardly mobile.

All in all, Burgis’ work so far has some useful critique but it doesn’t match the level of rigor and analysis I’ve seen in his other pieces, especially his work as a Jacobin columnist. I still plan on finishing the book, and plan on reading his other work.

But in the meantime, so far, much of Cancelling Comedians feels like a scattered mesh of ideas, most of which are focused on social media concerns, which matter, but to what degree?

My final point I’d like to add, sort of related to Burgis, is also the thought we, as socialists, have to give to the idea of leadership. Yes, it is a dumb idea to just reject people who are interested in left politics but may not agree on everything, including socialism. That said, our role as members of DSA, as organizers, is to help people evolve politically, to realize the need to end U.S. empire, to create an economy that provides reproductive care for all, etc., and this process will include sometimes challenging and confronting peoples’ biases and ignorance. We live in a neoliberal hell whereby most people now have no clue about anything other than neoliberal politics and privatization. Most people, even the most oppressed, will carry with them ideas that are incredibly conservative or detached from reality. Such ideas cannot simply be seen as “organic” to such persons. For socialism to succeed, there will be a need to challenge people on their “organic” biases and bigotry and ideas.

Socialism cannot be won by tailing after what other people want in the short-term, no matter what class they’re in.