Cancelling Comedians While the World Burns is the latest book from the logician of the Left, Ben Burgis. Over a light and accessible 136 pages he diagnoses the pathologies afflicting the modern online Left and proposes: “a smarter, funnier and more strategic” kind of progressive politics. A politics based on shamelessly “predictable-as-hell left-wing goals” being pursued for utility, as “Cancel Culture” should not interfere with self-evident Leftist goals. Consequently, the “right” goals are made explicit throughout the book in a messy mixture of “logic”, and “utilitarian” ethics.
While normally, self-described “pedant” Burgis’s best work is generally found in his willingness to debate anyone anywhere. His latest book continues this honorable project by debating his own target audience: other Leftists and curious Centrists. In doing so the book in form unfolds mostly as a response to the still ongoing Leftist problems popularly espoused in Mark Fisher’s famous essay: Exiting the Vampire Castle (2013).
Burgis follows Fisher in arguing the Left needs to (re)learn how to build strategic solidarity. A solidarity over and above the condemning and abusing of each other at the benefit of Capital, to the detriment of the Left. Burgis argues the Left must create the conditions for a safe space where disagreement can exist without exclusion and excommunication.
Burgis argues in his book for a movement to create a safe space beyond the Vampire Castle, but simply proposes a Vampire Castle with a happy face in the form of the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). A happy face movement based on his commitment to dry straight-forward logic as a tool to cut through all the modern pathologies of the Left; despite the fact this type of logic has nothing to do with diagnosing or addressing pathologies, and it has never been used for emancipatory social movements, or radical politics.
Cancelling Comedians … is firmly within the recently developed “democratic socialist” tradition of Bernie, AOC, and so on. It is another revisionist work arguing Socialism has had a radical re-emergence, and renewal via the failed Bernie Saunders campaigns. The book pushes the common Left media self-serving notion that Bernie’s utter failure was valuable because it got people in the US talking about a vague “Socialism” again (as with Jeremy Corbyn in the UK). An argument that despite all the metrics of failure, the Bernie campaign was really a success, and its spirit (volk) needs to be continued until the Real emancipatory movement emerges from it on the horizon. A movement that redeems all past failures. In the meantime, wait and wade through a web of mostly Liberal and Social Democratic media pundits under the umbrella: “Democratic Socialist”.
Burgis argues the promise beyond the failure of Bernie “Socialism” persists as an improvement, and opposition to most of historical Socialism and Chinese Socialism. He follows the Western Liberal line that these were/are both authoritarian failures; “We can (and should) both walk and chew bubblegum when it comes to our retrospective evaluation of these societies.” Burgis argues most of actually existing Socialism is untenable outside Cuba’s healthcare, and East Germany’s sex life.
Burgis’s Democratic Socialism is indistinguishable from Social Democracy, the form of Socialism that is in crisis and neutered in European parliamentary systems. Since, for him any other Socialism is not just a failure, but a pathology. Socialism is a failure if it cannot be dropped snuggly into a modern Western state’s social media driven electoral discourse. A strange move for a pedant to argue that history should not be described with clarity and accuracy but bent to the will of a spurring de-centralised “strategic” Left. History needs to be revised and made palatable to the electorate for the benefit of a winning social movement on the horizon.
The writer’s anti-Marxist Socialism arrives dues to his thesis: “One thing that all of the flaws of the contemporary left I discuss in this book have in common is that they’re symptoms of what I’ve come to think of as the pathologies of powerlessness.” For him “powerlessness” is not accepting that Democracy (as in Western Democratic Capitalism) is the only game in town. Burgis often drifts into support of the tired old cliché: “Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’ (Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947). Hence, in reading one finds his authoritative appeals to are mostly anti-Marxist thinkers: Noam Chomsky, Christopher Hitchens, and for some reason, Nathan Robinson.
What is more pathological than this recent incarnation of Democratic Socialism? What is more pathological than backing failed and powerless electoral (or DSA) programs? What is more pathological than arguing for a “Democracy” that never existed, but that can arrive via a “Socialism” that never existed? A Socialism that never existed outside of some smattering specific historical political compromises against the threat of actually-existing-socialism?
The book’s Democratic Socialism manifests as nothing but an empty signifier. An empty container for the powerless subject to fill up with whatever utopian fantasies, coping strategies, and perversities they desire. This Democratic Socialism enables a shell game to make passive the powerless. A shell game to preserve one’s sense of radicality and enjoyment in the face of a harsh and opposing reality. Is this not also a shell game to preserve Liberalism without its Liberalism baggage?
Like with National Socialism, Democratic Socialism performs a strategic rhetorical trick, a slight of hand. Burgis’s trick is that under the category of “Democratic” one can criticise all existing Socialism, and under “Socialism” one can critique all of “Capitalism”. A paradoxical one-size fits all category that provides perfect cover and flexibility for gaining market share in the media space of “radical” political punditry.
Burgis here does not come off as some grifter or bad faith actor. He here and elsewhere seems committed to this Social Democratic (re)reading of Socialism. A Socialism as the future successful path of a “progressive” emancipatory project (for US and UK proles). For him, “Subsequent transitions to communism in countries like China, Vietnam, and the Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe weren’t attempts to create socialist democracy”; and thus, even they are failure by his measure. Here he tips his hat in revealing by Democratic Socialist he really means “Social Democratic” almost exclusively. Or as he puts it himself, any existing movement based on, or comparing itself to “capital-C Communism" or China: “… would be fatal to the prospects for winning majority support for socialism.”
Burgis throughout his book uses “Left” as stand in for “Socialist”, yet another rhetorical shell game. With Burgis arguing the Left should be based on “logic” and “utility”. A belief that through engagement with these tools they will eventually manifest a future emancipatory movement that will redeem all past and present failures (Bernie 2016 & 2020, Green New Deal, and so on). The book relies on a naïve solution that the best arguments, or best people, will win in the end – if not for Cancel Culture.
Burgis argues for a Socialism of Western Democratic nations in opposition to actually existing Socialism under their own measure that they are “Democratic” (representative…). A proposal of some vague representative democracy is argued to be prima face good for Burgis. A conclusion against the fact that in all these democracies there is a tendency of increasing income inequality, dwindling social services, and a diminishing democratic nature. What could be more useless than this “Democratic” nature? What is the point of Democracy without increased living standards and political power? Otherwise, it is little more than legitimisation mechanic for one’s bad lot by a fuzzy feeling of “say” in the way things are.
Burgis believes the obstacle to unleashing Left emancipatory politics (and implicitly justifying why Bernie lost) is an overcoming the terror, obsession, and absurdity of Leftist Cancel Culture. If only the Left can strategically remove struggles about Joe Rogan, or Contrapoints, then the Left can succeed. This appears less as a prescription for future success post-Bernie, than a retroactive justification for why Bernie lost (just like Hilary blaming Bernie Bros, and so on).
Burgis misses that this Left orientating his prescription beyond these obstacles (of failed Cancel Culture) is nothing but a projection. His emancipatory future only exists as an idealistic and virtual response to these obstacles. If you remove the obstacle(s) then the virtual future beyond them collapses as well. Burgis in his attempt to create a mass line of utility to orientate the Left he is in violation of dialectical materialism.
The book, like Burgis’ body of work, is a “strategic” attempt to strip Socialism of its Marxism in an attempt at making it a more fashionable and progressive movement. Dialectical Materialism (and Historical Materialism) is nowhere to be seen, even dialectics itself is rejected and violated. Throughout his book, like his body of work, any Marxist utility is ignored and hand waved. Burgis only uses only Marx strategically instead of Marxism itself. Where Marx as in Marxism shows serious bona fides, Burgis flees. Spoilers, the book even ends with a famous Marx quote for impact (no prize for guessing the quote); but the book offers throughout an appeal to the utopian Socialism that Marx (and famous Marxists) explicitly despised.
Against Marxism, Burgis wants the motor of emancipatory politics to be analytic logic. Despite its historical opposition to successful Marxism, or even emancipatory politics, as such. What is less materialist than analytic logic? Burgis follows the long line of Capitalist loving Liberal thinkers who offer a utilitarian based ethical approach. Utilitarian strategy now, Socialism later.
Burgis makes a seemingly obvious misstep in his approach. If one wants to win over the hearts and minds, analytic logic is the least strategic method of debate or persuasion (see Trump, Zizek, or Peterson for instance). No analytic logician has ever been a good debater, and their approach is the anti-thesis of convincing rhetoric. In fact, Burgis skips over the fact that analytic logic has been exclusively the tool of Bourgeoise to justify whatever existing status quo they want to uphold.
A strategic Left is what Burgis advocates for, a Left aligned under: “The branch of inductive logic that’s relevant to strategic arguments is called ‘decision theory.’ A logical that in turn revolves around the concept of ‘expected value.’” Burgis persists despite the fact that this “Decision theory” is completely impotent politically and historically. A faulty unbridled optimism that a Left organised around a vague notion of “democratic” utility will be able to out manoeuvre and beat out a globally all-consuming capitalist logic working behind the backs of all; a logic operating as a self-evident logic of expected value as surplus value, or profit.
Burgis’s example justifying the utility of decision theory is found in his morally pre-loaded thought experiment found in Apartheid 1980’s South Africa; where:
You’re a member of uMkhonto we Sizwe (“Spear of the Nation”), the armed wing of the African National Congress, and you’ve been captured by the apartheid government. The official who interrogates you offers you a deal for clemency if you rat on your comrades. We could doubtless fill in the details of the thought experiment in such a way that there’s a utilitarian case to be made for taking the deal.
Burgis uses this example to show how one should not take the deal because the negative utility (going against the party/movement) overrides one’s immediate desire for freedom (life?) and safety. Thus, this person under decision theory will not make any deals against his comrades or movement, but they will subsume their whole existence to a vague un-dialectical “utility”. An optimism in negative utility that the history of Leftist infighting (and humanity) undermines, absolutely.
Burgis’s example mistakenly reveals how impotent his approach is. It gains its thrust by presuming one can see that: “… as a matter of principle you assign such a tremendous negative utility to informing to the enemy that you don’t do it.” This matter of principle finds it “obviousness” as a judgement presupposition based on historical understanding from a detached transcendental observational position. A contingent position in the present is always much more open and ambiguous than looking through a historical rear-view mirror.
Burgis’s utilitarian ethical position gains its “correctness” in being an arrow of historical progress (think Stalin’s train of history as justification). Burgis throughout his book cannot help but remind one of the glorious notion coined by Frederick Jameson: nostalgia for the present. A nostalgia mode that uses anachronisms that are out of joint for the benefit of the present.
Burgis’s nostalgia mode is most explicit in his argument against past Socialist history. Here he argues a record of indiscretions must favour his present Socialism, since by its own measure it avoids this record of inexcusable indiscretions (even in failing in the present it is less guilty). Moreover, Burgis’s Socialism as nostalgia mode, gains impetus and legitimisation from future potentiality that will redeem it. A clear nostalgia for the present values that must be on the right side of history, and future history.
Burgis’s nostalgia mode is most explicit via the example of his late anti-Stalinist Grandfather, Morris:
I would have been disappointed and disgusted if Morris had been on the wrong side of history. Similarly, I’d hate the thought of any future great-grandson or great-granddaughter or non-binary great-grandchild of mine finding out that I’d taken the side of the bigots and bullies and idiots on any parallel issue.
Burgis’s nostalgia mode takes the best contingent tendencies of the present (Western LGBT rights in the marketplace, Bernie moralism, and so on) and gives them legitimacy based on the fact history will redeem them. Therefore, what is to be done (against Lenin) is whatever will get one elected now via a pursuit of current progressive tendencies that will be backed by the future legitimising movement. A strange position against logic, and historical understanding.
Burgis wants to whip up a powerful Left while excluding Tankies, Chinese Socialism, and half of the demos: Right-Wingers. A tremendously narrow democratic path to a Socialism. Burgis mostly ignores the Right as they are taken for granted to be the enemy of his utopianism. But could the real reason be that the Right offers exceptions that undermine his book’s thesis? For example, the Right (religious, conspiratorial, bourgeois, and so on) can rally all sorts of political movements and action much easier than Democratic Socialists, especially the DSA. For instance, the right can easily whip up a populist fervor without using “analytic logic” or some ethically based strategic self-policing; see: June 6 Capital Riot, anti-Vax protests, QAnon, tea-party, anti-immigrant protests, and so on. Thus, Burgis in his pathology is fixated on the frankly insignificant Left Twitter culprits as requiring the focus and energies of Socialism now, in favour of a future successful emancipatory movement.
The irony of the book is that the many contradictions of Burgis’s approach resembles the utilitarianism advocated by alt-right/neo-reactionary: Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug). Yarvin, a far-right anti-socialist and pro-capitalist (of Red pill “fame”) offers a similar critique and solution. Burgis against his critics sounds like Yarvin; “Of course, you might think that this framework for thinking about left strategy is too cold-bloodedly utilitarian”; sure; “But decision theory can accommodate that too”. Both argue the solution is a better class of decision makers; an argument for a more ideal status quo against Dialectical Materialism, for them, the obvious solution is in fact the obvious solution itself but simply without distraction.
Curtis Yarvin calls his Burgis-like ideology "formalism". Like Burgis, he offers a straight-forward utilitarian goal to reduce the amount of violence in the world, especially that of organised violence. Yarvin’s chosen method is a reform to make the world more certain (logical), and to escape the violence of ambiguity (since utility will be more easily defined). Therefore, everything in the world (cities and countries) should be assigned to the absolute ownership of specific, identifiable business corporations as stakeholders. A solution with no transfers or redistribution, but a making explicit and clear who really controls things; and formalising their power as to help things become more efficient.
Yarvin radicalises Burgis’s negative utility for Right Wing purposes, showing its impotence. Yarvin uses it for arguing utilitarianism should lead to his Libertarian society being the least violent, and most rational. Of course, this obviously misses the fact of why ambiguity arose to begin with, its purpose, or that ambiguity as obfuscation is a useful tool for keeping power relations intact. Yarvin (like Burgis) misses why would the majority not in power accept some formalising logic concretising their lowly position? Why is Now the time when history stops, and utility is something that can be applied to all?
Burgis and Yarvin both fall into the well-known trap of analytic thinking and formalism. A trap where the thinker takes possession of logic as an empty schematic to justify a contingent self-serving positing. Nothing but a fastening their contingent utilitarian schema on to everything of self-interest, without grounding it in a universal Notion (Dialectical Materialism?) or even an immanent determination; both offer a mode of thinking at the service of an external presupposed arrangement. A schema of axioms to bash your enemies with for one’s own presupposed utilitarian ends.
Burgis’s problems emerge in his longstanding aversion to Lacanian Psychoanalysis, Marxism, and continental philosophy, generally. This leaves him with no consistent reading of how and why these Left pathologies emerge, or why they persist – outside of a presupposed surface reading that they are an “obvious” logical (or more often: moral) shortcoming. Burgis’s attempt to convince and persuade those to the “right” path via a non-pathological line fails because it presupposes there is a non-dialectical solution, and his path itself is not pathological. Burgis offers a vitalist right that needs to be pursued by one as a political actor (and movement). A right that one can plug into via logic, and with which they can motor their emancipatory politics.
Despite all the friendly criticism offered here, Burgis’s book succeeds for anyone interested in the contemporary Democratic Socialist milieu, or for those who enjoy Left Twitter/Youtuber drama of actors like Contrapoints, Joe Rogan, Nathan Robinson, and so on. Burgis to his credit writes clearly and in an accessible fashion; something against the contemporary Marxist tradition. Moreover, he has done logic for the Right and the Left, so one cannot help but be curious what his next book will be focused on and revolve around.
Burgis’s next book would be more successful than this if he listened to his comrade, and collaborator: Slavoj Žižek. Žižek can offer Burgis a powerful tool to guide his Left project, that of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Specifically, Lacan’s reminder against cynicism of: “les non-dupes errent”, where: “the non-duped make an error”. Burgis misses the Lacanian point that deception is necessary and constitutive of the symbolic order, thus Cancel Culture emerges from and is itself a place of struggle.
Against Burgis, maybe those involved in Twitter (and Youtube) spats over cancelling are engaging in actual struggle? Maybe it is that they realise the symbolic is a play of fictions and power, and not some illogical quicksand for morons? Maybe it is Burgis that is the duped one? For Burgis, in writing a whole book about the importance of this Cancel Culture Twitter struggle, he must truly in a pathological form believe that the Twitter struggle is more Real than they do. Is he himself not missing the Real struggle? Since, he is the logician bringing the truth of the non-duped Real mass line to the masses.