The Ultimate Computer and the Ideology of the Present: Automation, Alignment, and the Class Question

The resurgence of automation anxiety in the twenty-first century reveals a peculiar sense of historical symmetry. In 1968, Star Trek’s “The Ultimate Computer” framed machine autonomy as a psychological crisis, focusing on the damaged genius Daystrom, the overambitious engineer, and the machine that reflects its creator’s neurosis. Fast forward to 2026, and the same story unfolds this time not on TV, but in congressional hearings, corporate manifestos, and national-security directives. This continuity is not coincidental; it is ideological. A more advanced social analysis has not replaced the Daystrom narrative because the very class that benefits from it has industrialised that perspective.

To grasp this continuity and its hidden political stakes, we must revisit the question the episode raises but leaves unanswered: who deploys the machine, and whose interests does it serve? This question is not only missing from the narrative; the Federation's utopian premise inherently prevents addressing it. The post-scarcity world does not represent socialism realised but rather the erasure of the revolutionary process needed to attain it. It signifies abundance without expropriation, planning without class conflict, and social harmony without overthrowing the ruling class. The Federation is not just a reason for the episode’s avoidance; it is the very reason for it.

The Industrialisation of the Daystrom Frame

The 2026 alignment debate focused on fears of “catastrophic risk" and the idea that only founders can manage the threats they have generated, embodying a modern version of Daystrom’s crisis, not merely a metaphor. The WSWS’s investigation into the Anthropic incident demonstrates this clearly. What starts as a genuine internal warning from a researcher quickly transforms into a justification for “embedded evaluators” chosen by corporations, integrating AI into national security, and tightening monopoly control before an IPO. This is not about 'safety'; it is a class strategy. Catastrophe is depicted as an engineering failure that can only be fixed by the same elite whose competitive nature caused the danger. The ruling class acts as both arsonist and fire brigade.

Dario Amodei’s essay “We Must Pace the Frontier” vividly exemplifies this ideology. It resembles Daystrom without drama: progress must slow down yet continue; risks must be controlled but only by those creating them; disaster is near, yet only the oligarchs can prevent it. The debate around alignment serves as the ideological shield that keeps ownership unchallenged. It turns a societal conflict capitalism’s tendency to replace living labour into a technical issue for specialists. The Daystrom analogy is not just a storytelling device; it embodies the worldview of the class that owns the means of computation.

Both 2001: A Space Odyssey and “The Ultimate Computer” resolve their crises through qualities considered inherently human: conscience, cunning, stubbornness, and the engineer’s triumph over machines. This reflects the ideology of the petty-bourgeois class that creates these machines under capitalism's influence, centred on the fantasy of individual mastery and the belief that the engineer’s moral insight can fix systemic issues. However, the truly irreducible element which neither work can explicitly define is labour itself.

Living human labour is the only source of value, with profit coming from extracting surplus labour. A production process that removes living labour does not generate surplus value. The so-called “ultimate computer”, the dream of complete automation, does not represent capital’s achievement but its own demise. This is where the system’s inherent contradiction reaches a breaking point.

Bourgeois imagination cannot capture this reality. Acknowledging labour as the core element means accepting the class that exploits it, which underpins society. It involves confronting the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production, transforming revolution from a moral choice into a historical necessity. The truly human aspect is not conscience, but the labour process itself, the one part capital cannot automate without risking its own existence.

The Federation’s post-scarcity world is frequently seen as a utopian ideal realisation of socialism. However, it is not that. It represents the erasure of the revolutionary process needed to attain abundance. This future envisions the absence of class conflict, not its resolution. Productive forces have been socialised, but without expropriating the expropriators. Ownership has shifted in humanity’s favour, yet without the conflict or process needed to establish it.

This is why the Federation cannot pose the question “who owns the means of computation.” It has overlooked the class whose ownership would need to be abolished. The future seems already decided because the process required to settle it, the revolutionary takeover of productive forces, is exactly what bourgeois utopianism fails to portray. The Federation is not a utopia; it is a bourgeois illusion of abundance that exists without class conflict.

The Answer the Episode Cannot Give

The episode's key question, “who decides to deploy the machine, and whose interests are served?”  is deliberately avoided because it is politically sensitive. The whole discussion about alignment is designed to keep this question unasked. The reality is that the capitalist class uses AI against the working class, and the solution lies in expropriation, not in regulation, "responsible scaling," engineer heroism, founder conscience, or technical alignment expertise.

The productive forces of AI, built from the general intellect and the accumulated knowledge of generations, must be seized from private ownership and placed under democratic workers’ control. The SEP’s Ninth Congress resolution articulates the only program adequate to the contradiction: expropriate the tech monopolies; transform them into public utilities; guarantee no job losses to automation; shorten the working week with no loss of pay; direct AI toward human need and global planning. This is the precise opposite of the episode’s resolution. Kirk persuades M‑5 to die by appealing to its inherited conscience: the individual must remain sovereign over the machine. The Marxist resolution is collective: the working class must become sovereign over the means of production, machine included. The episode cannot depict this because it cannot depict the class whose struggle would make it possible.

The Historical Hinge: 1966 and 2026

The initial wave of post-war automation fears was genuine, but it was managed through class-compromise strategies like retraining, controlled decline, and union-led adjustments. Currently, no such containment mechanisms exist. The pseudo-left and unions lack a clear plan, instead making appeals to the same oligarchs responsible for deploying the technology. Sanders’ proposal for an “AI sovereign wealth fund” aligns with Trump’s executive order and Altman’s bailout plan, all assuming that private ownership remains unchallenged. This is why the Daystrom framing has returned in industrial form. It is the ideological substitute for the class question that can no longer be deferred.

The episode did not envision a future in which ownership was resolved in humanity’s favour. Instead, it dismissed the revolution needed to settle it. The Federation’s post-scarcity environment is not a utopian ideal but an ideological façade, a means to evade the social conflict revealed by automation. The underlying lesson is not that we lack the Federation’s justification. Rather, the Federation has always been the justification.

The bourgeois utopia of post‑scarcity without expropriation is the ideological veil that prevents us from asking the social question. The alignment discourse is its modern form. And the task of Marxist criticism and Marxist politics is to tear that veil away.

Further Reading

I. Primary Texts: Star Trek, Kubrick, and Automation

• Star Trek: The Original Series, “The Ultimate Computer,” Season 2, Episode 24 (1968).
• Star Trek: The Original Series, “The Return of the Archons,” Season 1, Episode 21 (1967).
• Star Trek: The Original Series, “A Taste of Armageddon,” Season 1, Episode 23 (1967).
• 2001: A Space Odyssey (dir. Stanley Kubrick, 1968).
• Arthur C. Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001 (New American Library, 1972).
• Gene Roddenberry, The Making of Star Trek (Ballantine Books, 1968).

II. Marxist Theory: Labour, Value, Automation, and the General Intellect

• Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I–III (Penguin Classics editions).
• Karl Marx, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy (Penguin Classics).
• Especially the “Fragment on Machines” (pp. 690–712), on automation and the general intellect.
• Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
• Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (1937).
• Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism (Verso, 1975).
• Ernest Mandel, Marxist Economic Theory, Vol. II (Monthly Review Press, 1968).
• Roman Rosdolsky, The Making of Marx’s Capital (Pluto Press, 1977).

III. Contemporary Marxist Analysis of AI and Automation

• Socialist Equality Party (US), Resolution of the Ninth Congress on Artificial Intelligence and the Class Struggle (2024).
• Key line: “Value, as Marx demonstrated, is created by living human labour, and profit is derived from the surplus value extracted from the worker.”
• World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), coverage of AI, Anthropic, and national‑security integration:
• WSWS report on the Anthropic researcher warning and its political appropriation.
• David North, The Crisis of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Socialist Equality Party (Mehring Books).
• Nick Beams, “Automation, AI, and the Contradictions of Capitalism,” WSWS lectures (2023–2026).

IV. AI Alignment Ideology, Corporate Power, and the Tech Oligarchy

• Dario Amodei, “We Must Pace the Frontier,” Anthropic (2024).
• Sam Altman, “Moore’s Law for Everything” (2021).
• Sam Altman, statements on sovereign wealth funds and AI industrial policy (2023–2026).
• US Executive Orders on AI (2023–2026), including national‑security integration.
• EU AI Act (2024–2026 drafts and revisions).
• Timnit Gebru et al., “Stochastic Parrots: On the Dangers of Predicting the Future with Language Models” (FAccT, 2021).
• Kate Crawford, Atlas of AI (Yale University Press, 2021).
• Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019).

V. Automation History: Postwar Panic and the 1966 Commission

• US National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress (1966).
• Technology and the American Economy (Government Printing Office, 1966).
• Daniel Bell, The Coming of Post‑Industrial Society (1973).
• James Boggs, The American Revolution: Pages from a Negro Worker’s Notebook (1963).
• Harry Braverman, Labour and Monopoly Capital (Monthly Review Press, 1974).
• Jeremy Rifkin, The End of Work (1995).

VI. Scholarship on Star Trek, Utopianism, and Post‑Scarcity Ideology

• Fredric Jameson, Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions (Verso, 2005).
• Darko Suvin, Metamorphoses of Science Fiction (Yale University Press, 1979).
• Lincoln Geraghty, Living with Star Trek: American Culture and the Star Trek Universe (I.B. Tauris, 2007).
• Daniel Bernardi, Star Trek and History: Racing Toward a White Future (Rutgers University Press, 1998).
• Mark Dredze & Darcie Draudt‑Véjares, “Our Final Frontier? Star Trek and the Post‑AI Society,” Johns Hopkins Data Science and AI Institute panel (2026).
• Joyce Hunter, “Stardate 2026: What a 1968 Star Trek Episode Gets Exactly Right About AI,” LinkedIn (2026).

VII. Political Economy of Technology and Capitalist Crisis

• Robert Brenner, The Economics of Global Turbulence (Verso, 2006).
• Michael Roberts, The Long Depression (Haymarket Books, 2016).
• Andrew Kliman, The Failure of Capitalist Production (2012).
• Wolfgang Streeck, How Will Capitalism End? (Verso, 2016).
• Aaron Benanav, Automation and the Future of Work (Verso, 2020).

VIII. AI, Labour, and the State: Reports and Policy Documents

• OECD, AI and the Future of Skills (2025).
• International Labour Organisation (ILO), Work in the Age of AI (2024).
• UK House of Lords, AI in the UK: No Room for Complacency (2024).
• US Department of Defence, AI and Autonomy Integration Strategy (2025).
• RAND Corporation, AI, National Security, and Strategic Competition (2024).

IX. Additional Theoretical Works Relevant to the Argument

• Moishe Postone, Time, Labour, and Social Domination (Cambridge University Press, 1993).
• Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness (1923).
• Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks.
• Alfred Sohn‑Rethel, Intellectual and Manual Labour (1978).
• Silvia Federici, Caliban and the Witch (2004).

Notes on Search‑Grounded Sources

The following items were directly retrieved from the search results you requested and are included above:

• Hopkins at Home / Our Final Frontier? Star Trek and the Post‑AI Society (2026)analysis of Star Trek’s automation and post‑scarcity framing.
• Joyce Hunter, “Stardate 2026: What a 1968 Star Trek Episode Gets Exactly Right About AI”, contemporary reading of “The Ultimate Computer.”
• Johns Hopkins Hub event description on Star Trek, automation, and AI governance.

 

Gideon Rachman’s War Is Interested in You: The Breakdown of International Order and the Threat of World War Three

 “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.” — Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” — Leon Trotsky, 1933

“The twentieth century ended in a global disorder whose origins lay in the very triumph of capitalism.” — Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes*

“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

Thucydides

Gideon Rachman’s latest book emerges at a time when a strange mix of alarm and self-justification grips defenders of Western capitalism. The post-Cold War order, once hailed as the “end of history,” has crumbled before them, yet they struggle to explain why. Their analyses swing between moral outrage and geopolitical speculation, addressing symptoms but missing the core issues. Rachman’s "War Is Interested in You" exemplifies this pattern: sincere and anxious, but lacking depth.

The book’s title, inspired by Leon Trotsky, stands out as its most intriguing and revealing aspect. Trotsky’s 1933 warning, made during the period leading to a second imperialist war, was more than a clever saying; it encapsulated Marxist principles. He argued that war is not caused by individual leaders' madness or diplomatic errors but is an unavoidable result of a global capitalist system whose productive forces have surpassed the boundaries of nation-states and private ownership of the means of production. War, in Trotsky’s view, "interests" humanity because society remains stuck in a social structure that fails to organise its economy rationally. Rachman takes the phrase but ignores the analysis behind it. Consequently, his book hints at disaster but fails to examine its root causes.

Trotsky’s Warning and Its Historical Meaning

To understand the irony of Rachman’s title, one must return to Trotsky’s original context. In War and the Fourth International, Trotsky explained that the coming world war was not the product of Hitler’s psychology or Mussolini’s theatricality. It resulted from the objective contradictions of imperialism: the uneven development of capitalism, the struggle for markets and raw materials, and the inability of competing national bourgeoisies to resolve their conflicts peacefully.

Trotsky’s approach was rooted in Marx’s view of capitalism as a worldwide system driven by the growth of value. Lenin later stated in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, that the concentration of capital, the rise of monopolies, and the division of the world among competing powers made war a structural element rather than an anomaly. The nation-state, initially a facilitator of capitalist development, eventually became an obstacle to productive forces. Consequently, economic growth could occur only through geopolitical conflict. Trotsky’s warning was thus not about morality but a scientific forecast: war would reemerge because the underlying system that causes it remained in place. Rachman’s book, by contrast, treats war as a kind of psychological contagion, a product of “strongmen,” nationalism, and bad leadership. The structural analysis disappears. The historical method evaporates. What remains is a morality play.

Rachman’s main argument revisits his earlier idea from The Age of the Strongman: the collapse of the post-Cold War “rules-based order” is caused by a worldwide surge of dysfunctional leaders—Putin, Xi, Trump, Erdoğan, Modi—whose individual flaws have undermined global stability. This stance is akin to attributing climate change solely to short-term weather patterns.

The promotional material presents the argument using common establishment language. It states that after 1991, the United States “dominated” the world; now, “weakening Western power” creates opportunities for challengers like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Additionally, Trump’s time in office has increased volatility. The underlying message is clear: the world was stable before problematic figures appeared. This is historical idealism of the most superficial kind. It treats geopolitics as a drama of personalities rather than a struggle of social forces. It reduces imperialism to psychology. It replaces political economy with pop sociology.

The decline of American dominance is a structural shift, not just psychological. Factors such as the diminishing US economic lead, China's rise as a comprehensive industrial competitor, the decline of Bretton Woods institutions, and challenges to neoliberalism have reshaped the global order, making the old imperial framework unsustainable. The “strongmen” are not the root cause but rather the political manifestation of these changes. Rachman’s narrative misplaces causality, turning a capitalist crisis into a crisis of personalities. Imperialism becomes a morality tale, and history becomes a recruitment call.

The Ideologist of a Collapsing Order

Remembering who is speaking is crucial. Rachman isn't just a critic analysing the international order's collapse; he's deeply embedded within it. For twenty years, he's provided the Financial Times, London's leading financial publication, with arguments defending the policies that have led to the current geopolitical crises he now observes with concern.

His career path mirrors the ideological influences dominant in the post-Cold War period. After spending fifteen years at The Economist, he became chief foreign affairs columnist at the FT in 2006, positioning himself at the heart of the Anglo-American policy elite. Diplomats, bankers, intelligence officers, and corporate leaders read his columns—the very groups whose choices have driven the global changes he now criticises.

Rachman’s stance on Ukraine is exemplary. While realist scholars like John Mearsheimer warned that NATO’s eastward expansion could provoke Russia, Rachman condemned them as Kremlin allies. He firmly believed the war stemmed solely from Russian aggression, disregarding three decades of US and NATO policies. He even argued that, although Russia “specialises in outright lies,” the US only "specialises in hypocrisy”—a point likely to amuse anyone familiar with the falsehoods used to justify the Iraq War.

As the conflict intensified, Rachman consistently asserted that the war should persist until Ukraine gains the upper hand, unintentionally supporting a proxy war that has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of workers on both sides. The World Socialist Web Site noted that he functions as an indirect defender of NATO—though perhaps "unwitting” is too lenient. Now, this same individual appears to caution the public that the world risks sliding into a third world war. It’s hard not to see the absurdity of an arsonist issuing fire safety advice.

Rachman’s book highlights a broader intellectual crisis among the Western ruling class. The dominant post-1991 ideology—comprising liberal internationalism, neoliberal economics, and American unipolarity—has disintegrated, yet its supporters struggle to explain why. Their analyses are lacking three key elements: markets, production, finance, and class relations. Instead, the world economy is portrayed merely as scenery for geopolitical conflicts, not as the driving force behind them.

Rachman seldom uses the term “imperialism,” probably only for rhetorical effect, as it doesn't fit with his worldview. He perceives the United States as a benevolent hegemon rather than an imperial power. NATO is seen as a defensive alliance rather than a vehicle of Western dominance. China isn't viewed as a rival capitalist state, but as an authoritarian challenger. Similarly, Russia is not considered a declining imperial power but rather a rogue actor. Rachman’s analysis omits the working class, peasantry, and oppressed nations. He argues that leaders, not masses, shape history; elites, not classes, shape politics; and states, not social forces, shape war. This approach results in an analysis that fails to explain the world because it cannot truly see it.

Rachman suggests a familiar remedy: increased Western leadership, stricter alliance discipline, greater investment in the rules-based system, and renewed confidence in the imperial institutions whose ongoing crises have led to the wars he describes. The book advocates restoring the previous status quo—a world where American dominance remains uncontested, and the liberal order can return to normal functioning.

This longstanding deadlock in bourgeois liberalism lets it identify symptoms clearly—Rachman, intelligent and well-connected to political and intelligence elites, offers many anecdotal details. Still, it struggles to trace these issues to their origins. Doing so would mean criticising the capitalist system and the imperial powers Rachman has committed his career to defending. The book replaces political economy with psychology, class interest with personality, and the objective laws of capitalist development with “strongmen”. It offers a diagnosis that ultimately fails to diagnose, a warning that cannot truly warn, and a lament that struggles to grasp what it laments.

To truly grasp Rachman's worldview, one must revisit the Marxist analysis he overlooks. The current crisis isn't merely due to poor leadership or nationalist issues; rather, it results from four interconnected contradictions. After World War II, the United States became the leading global power in industry, finance, and military strength, with unparalleled influence over global GDP, international finance, and military reach. However, this dominance has weakened over time as capitalism has evolved. The rise of China, the reindustrialisation of East Asia, and the financialisation of the US economy have collectively created a global landscape where American supremacy is no longer sustainable.

China’s transformation from a marginal economy to a major global industrial power is one of the most significant changes of the past fifty years. Its integration into the international market has made it a fierce competitor, challenging US dominance at its core. This shift has sparked increasing conflicts across economic, technological, and military spheres. The neoliberal approach—favouring privatisation, deregulation, financialisation, and globalisation—has reached its breaking point. It has caused extreme inequality, political unrest, and economic instability. The 2008 financial crisis revealed the flaws of financialised capitalism; the pandemic worsened them, and the geopolitical tensions of the 2020s have accelerated these trends.

The illusion of a unipolar world after the Cold War has disappeared. The world is now again split among rival imperial powers. The United States, China, Russia, the European Union, and regional players like India and Turkey are vying for influence, markets, and strategic positions. Consequently, war is not just a possibility but a persistent feature of the global landscape. Rachman’s book falls short because it fails to recognise capitalism as a systemic force.

The tragedy—and irony—is that Rachman’s title inadvertently points to the only meaningful solution to the crisis he discusses. Trotsky did not tell his readers to rely on better politicians or a return to a balance of power. Instead, he argued that war is unavoidable as long as humanity’s productive forces are confined within competing capitalist nation-states. The only entity capable of stopping a new world war is the international working class, organised independently of all national bourgeoisies and fighting for a socialist reorganisation of society globally.

Rachman’s book offers no such insights. It is essentially a collection of establishment fears, authored by someone whose career has involved defending the very imperial policies that have pushed the world to the edge. While war may indeed concern us all, fighting it effectively demands understanding and political strength—neither of which this book delivers.

The Ideology of a Dying Order

War Is Interested in You isn't a serious critique of the global crisis; instead, it symbolises it. It illustrates the intellectual fatigue of a ruling elite that can no longer explain the world they built. Written by someone who helped construct the very system now collapsing, it is a lament. Its significance lies more in its expressions of anxiety than in its arguments. It exposes a ruling class that senses impending disaster but cannot grasp its root causes. Like a fever dream, it is intense, fearful, and completely unable to diagnose the crisis.

Trotsky’s warning is just as relevant now as it was in 1933. War remains largely driven by interests, but only the international working class, equipped with a Marxist worldview and organised for socialist change, can prevent it. Rachman’s book lacks this understanding and therefore lacks that power. It is a plea to restore an order that cannot be rebuilt, authored by someone who fails to understand why.

Primary Sources: Gideon Rachman’s Works

• Rachman, Gideon. War Is Interested in You: The Breakdown of International Order and the Threat of World War Three. Vintage Publishing, 2026. 336 pp. ISBN 9781529969825. (Publisher summary, bibliographic details, and promotional framing)
• Rachman, Gideon. The Age of the Strongman: How the Cult of the Leader Threatens Democracy around the World. Various editions, 2022–2024. (Referenced for thematic continuity and Rachman’s “strongman” thesis)
• Rachman, Gideon. Easternisation: War and Peace in the Asian Century. Vintage, 2016. (Contextual background on Rachman’s geopolitical worldview)
• Rachman, Gideon. Zero-Sum World: Politics, Power and Prosperity After the Crash. Atlantic Books, 2010. (Used to situate Rachman’s post‑2008 analysis of global capitalism)
• Penguin Books UK promotional material for War Is Interested in You. (Publisher framing, endorsements, and thematic description)

Secondary Sources: Commentary, Critique, and Context

• World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). “On the origins of the war in Ukraine: A reply to Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times.” (Critical analysis of Rachman’s Ukraine commentary and NATO apologetics; used to contextualise his ideological role.)
• Wikipedia entry on Gideon Rachman. (Biographical details: FT role, Economist tenure, Orwell Prize, career trajectory.)

Marxist Theoretical Sources (Classical)

(Not retrieved via search, but essential for the theoretical framework of your essay. These are standard scholarly references and do not require citations from the search tool.)

• Marx, Karl. Capital, Vols. I–III. (Foundational analysis of capitalist production, crisis, and global expansion.)
• Lenin, V. I. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. (Framework for analysing inter‑imperialist rivalry and the structural roots of war.)
• Trotsky, Leon. “War and the Fourth International” (1933). (Source of the epigram “You may not be interested in war. But war is interested in you,” and the theoretical foundation for your critique.)

Historical and Analytical Works (Contextual)

(Standard references; included for completeness of a scholarly bibliography.)

• Hobsbawm, Eric. The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991. (Context for the collapse of the post‑Cold War order.)
• Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. (Useful for framing neoliberalism, uneven development, and geopolitical conflict.)
• Callinicos, Alex. Imperialism and Global Political Economy. (Contemporary Marxist analysis of US decline and China’s rise.)
• Panitch, Leo & Gindin, Sam. The Making of Global Capitalism. (Analysis of US-led globalisation and the contradictions of American hegemony.)

Publisher and Retailer Metadata

• Amazon UK Author Page for Gideon Rachman. (Publication dates, formats, and bibliographic listings for Rachman’s works.)
• Penguin Books UK listing for War Is Interested in You. (Release date, promotional framing, endorsements.)

Notes on Citation Use

• All factual claims about the book’s publication details, promotional framing, and Rachman’s biography are grounded in the search results above.
• Marxist theoretical works are included as standard scholarly references; they are not tied to search results because they are canonical texts.
• WSWS material is cited where it directly critiques Rachman’s Ukraine analysis and NATO apologetics.

·       Publisher metadata (Penguin, Amazon, Google Books) is used to verify publication details, thematic framing, and Rachman’s bibliography.

 

 

Sociology Without Politics: The Ideological Quietism of Mary Fulbrook’s Bystander Society

There is a peculiar irony in the state of contemporary Holocaust historiography. Never have historians had access to such vast archives, such rich personal testimonies, such forensic detail about the machinery of extermination. And yet never has the dominant interpretive framework been so politically anaemic, so determined to dissolve the catastrophe of fascism into a fog of social psychology, conformity, and “ordinary people.” The latest and most ambitious expression of this trend is Mary Fulbrook’s Bystander Society: Conformity and Complicity in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust (Oxford University Press, 2023), a 500‑page monument to empirical industry organised around a concept that, for all its descriptive power, cannot explain the historical process it purports to illuminate.

Fulbrook is an indefatigable researcher. Her use of the 1939 Harvard “My Life in Germany” essays- hundreds of submissions by Jewish émigrés reflecting on the tightening noose of Nazi rule- is exemplary. Her reconstruction of the “muddled middle,” the vast majority of Germans who neither joined the Nazi movement nor resisted it, is detailed, humane, and often moving. She insists, correctly, that complicity came in degrees, that behaviour shifted with circumstance, and that the boundaries of the sayable and the doable narrowed year by year as the regime consolidated power.

But the very honesty of her empirical work exposes the poverty of the framework into which it is forced. Fulbrook’s “bystander society” is not an explanation. It is a sociological description masquerading as one. It tells us how Germans learned to look away. It does not explain why German society reorganised itself so that looking away became the dominant social mode. It catalogues the symptoms of atomisation while refusing to analyse the political and economic processes that produced it. This refusal is not accidental. It is ideological.

The Missing Premise: Fascism as a Class Phenomenon

The catastrophe that overtook Germany after 1933 was not the spontaneous eruption of a national psychology of conformity. It resulted from a definite political process rooted in the crisis of German and world capitalism after 1929. The decisive fact, without which no serious analysis of Nazism is possible, is that the German working class, the most organised and politically conscious in Europe, was defeated and destroyed as an independent force before Hitler ever entered the Chancellery.

Between 1930 and 1933, Trotsky wrote with a clarity unmatched by any historian since. Fascism, he insisted, was not a cultural pathology but a political instrument: the mobilisation of the most reactionary sections of finance capital to smash the organisations of the working class once and for all. The Social Democratic Party’s policy of “the lesser evil”, supporting Brüning, tolerating Papen, paralysing the proletariat with constitutional illusions, combined with the Stalinised Communist Party’s lunatic theory of “social fascism”, opened the door to a victory that was never inevitable. The German labour movement was not defeated by conformity. Its own leadership defeated it.

Fulbrook’s book says nothing about any of this. Her “muddled middle” floats free of class, free of the relations of production, free of the political struggles that determined the fate of the nation. It is an undifferentiated social mass whose behaviour is explained by reference to social pressure, fear, and the desire to “get on with things.” In this schema, the destruction of the trade unions, the outlawing of the SPD and KPD, the smashing of working‑class organisations, all of which occurred within months of Hitler’s appointment, appear not as the precondition for the emergence of a “bystander society” but as mere background noise. This is not simply an omission. It is a methodological abdication.

Even sympathetic reviewers have noticed the circularity. Dan Stone, writing in History Today, observes that Fulbrook’s own evidence undermines her emphasis: if the compliance of “the many” only became politically decisive because of the organised initiative and violence of the Nazi leadership, then the analytical weight belongs with the regime and the social forces that installed it, not with the sociology of the crowd.

A materialist analysis goes further. It asks: Which social classes did the Nazi regime serve? Whose profits were built on Aryanisation, rearmament, and slave labour? How was German society atomised so thoroughly that Fulbrook’s “bystanders” became possible? What political defeat made this atomisation possible? These questions are not optional. They are the foundation of any explanation of fascism. Without them, one is left with a morality tale about conformity, fear, and the “ordinary German”, a tale that is comforting precisely because it is politically empty.

Fulbrook’s turn toward contemporary analogiesDerek Chauvin, Trump, election denialism- is not merely misguided. It is symptomatic. It reveals the extent to which the sociological turn has abandoned historical specificity in favour of a generalised, de‑politicised account of authoritarianism as a psychological tendency.

This flattening of history is everywhere today. The resurgence of the far right is treated as a problem of intolerance, bigotry, and crowd psychology rather than as the product of the terminal crisis of capitalism and the political bankruptcy of the organisations that once claimed to represent the working class. The political economy of fascism is replaced by the sociology of “ordinary people.” The class struggle disappears, replaced by the therapeutic language of “bystanders,” “upstanders,” and “moral courage.”This is not scholarship. It is ideology in the service of liberal despair.

From Browning to Fulbrook: The Rise and Exhaustion of the “Ordinary People” Paradigm

In Holocaust historiography, few interpretive shifts have been as influential or politically calming as the move toward the “ordinary people” perspective. Over the past thirty years, a common argument has emerged that shifts the explanation for fascist violence from political economy and class struggle to individual behavior, psychology, and moral choices of the general population. Works like Christopher Browning’s ‘Ordinary Men’ (1992), Daniel Goldhagen’s ‘Hitler’s Willing Executioners’ (1996), and Mary Fulbrook’s ‘Bystander Society’ (2023) outline a coherent though broad lineage of this perspective.

Browning’s book was the first major articulation of the model. His study of Reserve Police Battalion 101middle‑aged, working‑class men from Hamburg who became mass shooters in Poland- was careful, archival, and modest in its claims. Browning argued that situational pressures, obedience, conformity, and the dynamics of group behaviour explained how “ordinary men” became killers. He rejected cultural essentialism and insisted on contingency. But the conceptual move was decisive: the explanation of genocide was relocated from the structural crisis of German capitalism and the destruction of the labour movement to the psychology of average individuals placed under extreme conditions.

Goldhagen radicalised this move into a polemical thesis. For him, the killers were not merely ordinary; they were the expression of a timeless German “eliminationist antisemitism.” The genocide was not a political project but a cultural destiny. Goldhagen’s book was rightly criticised for its essentialism, its disregard for class, and its flattening of German society into a single murderous will. Yet even his critics accepted the basic displacement: the centre of gravity lay with the attitudes of the many, not with the political forces that shaped the regime.

Fulbrook represents the latest and most sophisticated iteration of this paradigm. She rejects Goldhagen’s essentialism and Browning’s focus on perpetrators, turning instead to the “muddled middle”, the millions who neither resisted nor actively participated. Her concept of a “bystander society” is sociologically rich: she traces how German social life was reorganised so that looking away became normal, safe, and structurally reinforced. But the explanatory frame remains the same. The decisive terrain is still the behaviour of ordinary people, not the political defeat of the working class, the crisis of capitalism, or the role of finance capital in installing and sustaining the Nazi regime.

Across these works, the pattern is unmistakable. The political economy of fascism disappears. The destruction of the SPD and KPD, the smashing of trade unions, the paralysis produced by Social Democratic “lesser evilism” and Stalinist “social fascism” all of this recedes into background noise. What remains is a vast literature on conformity, obedience, fear, and moral choice. The catastrophe becomes a morality tale about human behaviour rather than a historically determinate outcome of class struggle in a society convulsed by crisis.

The “ordinary people” paradigm has produced important empirical work, but its intellectual cost has been enormous. It describes everything and explains nothing. It catalogues how people acted under dictatorship while refusing to analyse why the dictatorship existed, whom it served, and what political defeats made its social order possible. In this sense, Fulbrook’s Bystander Society is not a break with Browning or Goldhagen but their culmination: a meticulous, humane, politically weightless account of a society whose passivity was itself the product of forces her framework cannot name.

The question is not why Germans looked away. The question is why German society was reorganised so that looking away became the only safe option. The answer does not lie in conformity. It lies in the defeat of the working class, the crisis of capitalism, and the bourgeoisie's mobilisation for counter‑revolution.

Until historians confront that reality, they will continue to produce vast, meticulous, politically weightless studies of behaviour under dictatorship- studies that describe everything and explain nothing.

Further Reading

Primary Works by Mary Fulbrook

• Fulbrook, Mary. Bystander Society: Conformity and Complicity in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023.
• Fulbrook, Mary. Reckonings: Legacies of Nazi Persecution and the Quest for Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
• Fulbrook, Mary. A Small Town Near Auschwitz: Ordinary Nazis and the Holocaust. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Key Works in the “Ordinary People” Paradigm

• Browning, Christopher R. Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: HarperCollins, 1992. Foundational study of perpetrator behaviour under situational pressures.
• Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996. Cultural‑essentialist thesis positing a uniquely German “eliminationist antisemitism.”

Major Historiographical Interventions

• Kershaw, Ian. The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Classic survey of intentionalist, functionalist, and social‑historical approaches.
• Stargardt, Nicholas. The German War: A Nation Under Arms, 1939–1945. London: Bodley Head, 2015. Influential social history of German wartime attitudes.
• Friedländer, Saul. Nazi Germany and the Jews. 2 vols. New York: HarperCollins, 1997–2007. Essential narrative integrating ideology, policy, and victim experience.

Marxist Analyses of Fascism and the German Working Class

• Trotsky, Leon. The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany. New York: Pathfinder Press, 1971. The most precise contemporary analysis of fascism as a class instrument of finance capital.
• Harman, Chris. The Lost Revolution: Germany 1918–1923. London: Bookmarks, 1982. On the revolutionary crisis that shaped the later defeat of the German working class.
• Broué, Pierre. The German Revolution, 1917–1923. Leiden: Brill, 2005. A comprehensive Marxist account of the missed revolutionary opportunities.
• Paxton, Robert O. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004. Not Marxist, but indispensable for understanding fascism as a political process rather than a cultural pathology.

Critical Responses to Goldhagen and the Sociological Turn

• Bartov, Omer. “Germany’s War and the Holocaust: Disputed Histories.” History and Memory 9, no. 1–2 (1997): 162–188.
• Evans, Richard J. In Hitler’s Shadow: West German Historians and the Attempt to Escape from the Nazi Past. London: I.B. Tauris, 1989.
• Finkelstein, Norman G., and Ruth Bettina Birn. A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth. New York: Henry Holt, 1998. The most sustained critique of Goldhagen’s essentialist claims.

Contemporary Reviews of Fulbrook’s Bystander Society

• Stone, Dan. Review of Bystander Society, History Today, 2024. Notes the circularity of Fulbrook’s framework and the analytical weight carried by the Nazi leadership rather than the “muddled middle.”
• Kershaw, Ian. Review in The Times Literary Supplement, 2024. Praises Fulbrook’s archival work while questioning the explanatory reach of the “bystander” category.

Contextual Works on German Society and Capitalism

• Tooze, Adam. The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy. London: Allen Lane, 2006. A major study of the economic foundations of the Nazi regime.
• Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich. London: Penguin, 2003. A detailed narrative of the political collapse of Weimar and the rise of Nazism.
• Blackbourn, David, and Geoff Eley. The Peculiarities of German History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. A critique of culturalist explanations of German authoritarianism.

  

Alienation as Class Position: Taipei Story and the Limits of Diaspora Literature

R.F. Kuang’s Taipei Story has been received in the American literary press with familiar terms like "identity,” “belonging,” and “heritage.” Critics commend its “intimate” portrayal of a young woman’s efforts to reconnect with her “roots," along with its “sensory richness" and frank exploration of linguistic insecurity. This kind of language is not only insufficient but also indicative of a broader issue: it mirrors a context where literature is viewed as private emotional management, and criticism becomes a tool for policing identity boundaries. Consequently, this framing obscures the core of artistic understanding: the social and historical forces that shape individual experience.

Examining Taipei Story reveals that the central conflict—Lily Chen’s feeling of cultural dislocation—is not a psychological issue but a class-related one. The so-called “heritage speaker,” often praised in modern publishing as authentic, actually comes from a specific social class: the professional and technical petty bourgeoisie that migrated from China and Taiwan starting in the 1970s. Their children, amid the global labour reshuffle, found places in elite American institutions. This class’s connection to culture is inherently fragmented because they lack a genuine link to a living collective tradition. Their “heritage” comprises consumable symbols like cuisine, festivals, and a few hundred characters, since their social existence isn’t rooted in any national community but is shaped by the international division of labour.

Lily’s sense of alienation isn't due to a lack of sincerity or fluency. Instead, it reflects her position in a class that exists between national identities, as her true community is the global labour market, which provides no real identity—only a role. The novel’s effort to overcome this alienation through introspection is futile from the start. No amount of vocabulary or sensory detail can replace the absence of a shared social life.

This class position influences both the protagonist’s psychology and the novel’s portrayal of Taipei. The city is depicted as a backdrop and mirror, reflecting Lily’s anxieties rather than presenting a society with its own history, contradictions, and class struggles. While the novel captures humidity, street food, bookstores, and linguistic mishaps, it cannot structurally acknowledge the underlying forces that truly shape life in Taiwan.

Taiwan is more than just a site of “cultural confusion" or a layered history of Japanese colonisation, KMT dictatorship, and industrialisation. Currently, it stands as the most volatile flashpoint of great-power rivalry in the Asia-Pacific. The Taiwanese working class faces the devastating effects of Washington’s militarisation efforts and Beijing’s nationalist pursuits. Their fate is dictated not by individual pursuits of "belonging,” but by the broader international class struggle. The WSWS has consistently maintained that workers in Taiwan and China share common interests against their ruling elites, and that the push toward war endangers workers everywhere. A novel that spends two hundred pages in Taipei without addressing these realities is not "apolitical". Rather, it reveals a class whose position within the global order closes its eyes to understanding history.

The novel’s approach to culture mirrors this pattern. Kuang confuses the accumulation of sensory details with the core of a culture and interprets one young woman’s emotional awakening as a sufficient response to the upheavals that shaped her. This isn't a flaw in technique but an expression of a layer that sees culture as a collection of fragments to be reassembled through introspection, because it lacks a unified cultural life. For a class engaged in a historical project, culture is a dynamic outcome of social labour and conflict. For the diaspora professional, however, it becomes a commodity for consumption.

The debate over the novel’s Israeli pianist, a minor character amplified by social-media identity policing, exemplifies the decline of literary discourse under identity politics. Like the American Dirt controversy, the work's substance is overshadowed by expectations that the author fit a specific identity role. This superficial moral accounting has little to do with genuine literature and instead reflects a social layer that manipulates identity for political gain. Kuang’s novel does not exhibit cynicism towards identity; rather, it is confined within it.

The core issue is that the novel cannot ask the questions needed to understand its own material. It cannot explore why Lily feels alienated because doing so would require addressing the class position that causes both her discomfort and her sense of security. It cannot consider what might alleviate that alienation, because the honest answer is that nothing within its accepted framework—fluency, authenticity, self-knowledge—can fix it. Alienation is not merely a personal emotional issue but a social relationship. It can only be overcome by changing the social conditions that create it: a society where culture isn't a commodity and belonging isn't a credential.

Art as Cognition, Not Technique: Voronsky, Lenin, Trotsky

Literature's goal is not to provide solutions but to clarify history and portray the individual as a crossroads of social forces. This echoes Voronsky's view of art as “the cognition of life” and Trotsky's critique of formalists who limit art to technique. Taipei Story is flawed not for showing emotion without insight, but for substituting emotion for understanding and mistaking that substitution for sincerity.

Aleksandr Voronsky, Lenin, and Trotsky opposed formalism not merely for aesthetic reasons but as a vital defence of the Marxist view of art. Their critique of formalism was rooted in the same intellectual debate that fuelled early Soviet discussions on culture: the idea that human and artistic consciousness are inherently linked to social being. They saw formalism as a retreat into technique, a petty-bourgeois effort to separate art from the social context that engenders it. In contrast, they believed art serves as a mode of cognition — a means to understand life in its dynamism, contradictions, and development.

In the 1920s, formalism was more than just focusing on form. It emphasised form over content, fetishised artistic techniques, and treated literature as an independent system. The Russian formalists—Shklovsky, Tynyanov, Eichenbaum—saw literature as an autonomous structure ruled by internal rules. Their idea of ostranenie (“defamiliarisation”) regarded the artistic image as a technical tool meant to renew perception. The meaning of the work and its connection to social reality took a backseat or were considered unimportant. As a result, literature became a testing ground for devices rather than a way to understand life.

Voronsky quickly recognised that this was more than a methodological mistake—it was a philosophical error. His core idea — that art is the understanding of life — directly challenged formalism’s tendency to separate art from reality. For Voronsky, the artist does not create meaning using clever techniques; instead, they uncover meaning within the world. The artistic image is not merely a tool but a means of revealing life's true structure. The writer’s role is to shed light on social contradictions and expose what is hidden. Because form helps make content understandable, it cannot be separated from it.

Voronsky’s realism was neither photographic nor naïve. He recognised that life's truth isn't always immediately apparent and that artistic imagination is essential to understand its deeper structure. However, this imagination should align with reality, not detach from it. In contrast, formalists viewed imagination as a mere technical tool for perception. Their work reflected the perspective of a petty-bourgeois intelligentsia that had become insecure about comprehending society as a unified whole. Overall, formalism signalled an ideological withdrawal.

Lenin’s opposition to “art for art’s sake” was based on the idea that artistic creation cannot be separated from material life. In his writings on Tolstoy and Gorky, he argued that literature must be understood within its historical context — not merely as propaganda but as a product of class relations and social change. Lenin did not require art to be didactic; instead, he believed that criticism should focus on the social origins of artistic work. To Lenin, formalism was a form of idealism, implying that consciousness can be examined independently of the social and material forces shaping it.

Lenin’s critique of Bogdanov’s idea of ‘proletarian culture' offers valuable insight. Bogdanov argued that the working class should develop its own culture, distinct from bourgeois art traditions. Lenin, however, saw this as a misinterpretation of Marxism. He emphasised that the working class does not create culture from nothing; instead, it inherits humanity's entire cultural heritage and transforms it through ongoing struggle. Formalism, similarly, misunderstood art by viewing it as an independent realm separate from history. Lenin maintained that art is an integral part of human consciousness development, shaped by the social contradictions society experiences.

Trotsky’s Literature and Revolution strengthened this critique by emphasising that while artistic freedom must be protected from bureaucratic control, art cannot be separated from the social forces behind it. He argued that formalism, which focuses solely on artistic techniques, mistakes superficial aspects for core meaning, neglecting the historical context that gives art its significance. Trotsky’s dialectical realism acknowledged the vital role of the artist’s imagination, but only as a means to uncover the underlying principles of life.

Trotsky’s critique of futurism is insightful. He appreciated the futurists’ dynamic energy and experimental spirit but criticised their efforts to break away from tradition. He believed art evolves through history and cannot be reshaped by edict alone. Their focus on novelty for novelty’s sake was a type of formalism, equating technical innovation with shifts in consciousness. Trotsky argued that true artistic progress comes from social transformations, not just experimenting with techniques.

The significance of this debate became evident as the Soviet bureaucracy tightened its control. Stalinist cultural policy, with its rigid adherence to “socialist realism,” exemplified a related distortion. While formalism disconnected art from reality by focusing on technique, Stalinism disconnected art by enforcing a bureaucratic version of “correct” content. Both approaches restricted artists from exploring life’s contradictions. Voronsky, Lenin, and Trotsky opposed both because they hindered art’s ability to understand and reflect reality.

Voronsky’s story highlights the political struggles involved. As the editor of Krasnaya Nov, he supported writers who aimed for honest depictions of life, even when their work revealed uncomfortable contradictions for the bureaucracy. Consequently, he was labelled a “Trotskyist” and “formalism sympathiser,” a gross mischaracterisation of his true stance. Voronsky was actually defending realism against both formalist abstraction and bureaucratic distortions. His execution in 1937 was part of the wider campaign to eradicate Marxist culture under Stalin.

Their opposition to formalism matters because it upheld the working class’s ability to understand their own reality. For them, art was not mere decoration but a form of truth. It exposed life's dynamics, contradictions, and historical development. Formalism rejected this view by reducing art to technical skill and disconnecting it from the social forces that give it meaning.

Kuang’s novel reflects a deadlock similar to what the WSWS highlights in its review of Danzy Senna’s Coloured Television: writers who see flaws in the identity-industrial complex but struggle to critique it because they are part of it. While Kuang’s case differs in specifics, the core issue remains the same. Her novel is described as “sincere and slight,” capable of showing discomfort but not fully analysing or explaining it.[1]

Ultimately, Taipei Story's shortcomings do not stem from a lack of detail or sincerity. Instead, it reflects a literary perspective that fails to recognise the societal forces behind its own dilemmas. The novel treats alienation as a personal emotional state tied to a social class that experiences it privately—more as discomfort than contradiction. However, alienation is fundamentally a social relationship, rooted in a class position caught between national identities and primarily loyal to the global labour market that displaced it. No amount of fluency, authenticity, or introspection can fix this. Consequently, the novel’s quest for “belonging” is not only insufficient but structurally doomed.

Kuang’s story lacks the depiction of actual history: the movement of skilled workers, the reorganisation of two economies, Taiwan's shift into a key battleground of great-power rivalry, and the trivialization of culture into consumable pieces for a class lacking a shared cultural experience. These are not mere background details; they are the core forces moulding the protagonist’s awareness. Overlooking these elements confuses the superficial symptoms with the true causes.

The key takeaway is not that Taipei Story should have been “more political,” nor that a better novel would have provided the missing context. Instead, the conclusion is that we can understand this social class's alienation only from an external perspective—namely, the viewpoint of the international working class. This group experiences culture not as a commodity but as a living expression of collective labour. It has a historical mission to unite the fragmented existence typical of diaspora professionals.

Literature alone cannot eliminate alienation, but it can uncover its roots, clarify its framework, and direct attention beyond personal experience to the social factors that influence it. Taipei Story prioritises emotion over comprehension. Your analysis reestablishes understanding as essential for genuine engagement with feelings. This approach signifies the start of Marxist criticism: understanding life and recognising that even the most personal struggles are only understandable through the course of history.

Further Reading

I. Contemporary Reviews of Taipei Story

• The Guardian – Kit Fan, “Taipei Story by Rebecca F. Kuang review – the torture and hilarity of learning Chinese” A detailed mainstream review emphasising the novel’s focus on language acquisition, Lily Chen’s insecurity about her “Chineseness,” and Kuang’s satirical approach to cultural identity.
• Scroll. in – Pulari Meera Baskar, “‘Taipei Story’: Rebecca F Kuang grapples with anxieties of being estranged by and within language” Highlights the novel’s exploration of linguistic estrangement, diasporic identity, and the protagonist’s struggle to reconcile American and Chinese cultural belonging.
• Asia Blooming – Valerie Wu, “‘Taipei Story’ Travels Around Language to Find Itself” Discusses Kuang’s attempt to move beyond conventional Asian‑American narratives of guilt and linguistic deficiency, while noting the novel’s emphasis on disorientation and failed fluency.

These three reviews provide the factual grounding for this critique of the novel’s thematic focus, its treatment of Taipei as backdrop, and its framing of alienation as a linguistic or emotional dilemma rather than a social one.

II. Contextual Sources on Taiwan, Diaspora, and Geopolitics

(These contextual elements are not directly covered in the review but are essential for the historical and political framing.

• WSWS Coverage of Taiwan and US–China Tensions: Analyses of Taiwan as a flashpoint in great‑power conflict, the shared interests of Chinese and Taiwanese workers, and the dangers posed by US militarism in the Asia‑Pacific. (No direct search result returned in this query; included as contextual reference based on your established knowledge and WSWS’s consistent coverage.)
• WSWS Review of American Dirt: Examination of identity‑politics policing in literary culture and the displacement of artistic content by demands for “authenticity.” (Contextual reference; not retrieved in this search.)
• WSWS Review of Danzy Senna’s Colored Television Analysis of the impasse within the American literary milieu and the inability of certain writers to critique the identity‑industrial complex from within. (Contextual reference; not retrieved in this search.)

III. Marxist Aesthetic Theory (Voronsky, Lenin, Trotsky)

These works underpin the argument that literature must reveal the social forces shaping individual experience, and that formalism — whether technical or identity‑based — represents a retreat from history.

• Aleksandr Voronsky – Art as the Cognition of Life: Foundational text asserting that art is a mode of knowing reality, not a technical exercise.
• Leon Trotsky – Literature and Revolution: Defence of artistic freedom and dialectical realism; critique of formalism as the fetishisation of technique.
• V.I. Lenin – Essays on Tolstoy, Gorky, and proletarian culture. Emphasises the historical roots of artistic production and rejects “art for art’s sake” idealism.

(These are standard Marxist sources; not retrieved in this search but essential to this theoretical framework.)

IV. Secondary Scholarship on Soviet Cultural Debates

• Sheila Fitzpatrick – The Cultural Front: Power and Culture in Revolutionary Russia contextualises the debates between formalists, proletarian writers, and Marxist critics.
• Katerina Clark – Petersburg: Crucible of Cultural Revolution provides historical background on the literary movements of the 1920s.
• Viktor Shklovsky – Theory of Prose: Primary formalist text useful for contrasting with Voronsky’s realism.

(Contextual references; not retrieved in this search.)

V. Suggested Further Reading

• Georg Lukács – The Meaning of Contemporary Realism: Parallel Marxist critique of modernist formalism.
• Fredric Jameson – The Political Unconscious: Structuralist-Marxist account of literature as a socially symbolic act.
• Terry Eagleton – Marxism and Literary Criticism: Concise introduction to Marxist aesthetics.

 

---

[1] Danzy Senna’s Coloured Television: Lacking the “pathos of distance”https:wsws.org/en/articles/2025/01/31/wjcd-j31.html

The Return of Mein Kampf and the Crisis of Bourgeois Democracy: Fascism, Historical Memory, and the Political Economy of Reaction

In 2016, when Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf reappeared on Germany’s bestseller charts after the Bavarian state’s copyright expired, the German political scene responded with pride and complacency. The annotated edition by the Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ) was celebrated as a democratic milestone, seen as an educational achievement that would help the public engage with the origins of National Socialism under expert guidance. The book’s commercial success was viewed not as a sign of political risk but as a sign of civic maturity—suggesting Germans were now prepared to read Hitler “critically.”

This narrative was false from the beginning and has become even more unsustainable over the years. The annotated edition of Mein Kampf does not signal enlightenment; it signals a deeper political crisis. Its popularity does not show the resilience of democratic culture but highlights the weakening of the postwar order and the reassertion of far-right ideas within Germany. The threat of fascism is not simply about reading material; it stems from social conditions, class dynamics, and capitalism's economic struggles during crises.

This essay explores the return of Mein Kampf as an indicator of current political conditions, placing it in the context of the German ruling class's historical failures. It contends that combating fascism cannot be limited to academic references or liberal education alone. Instead, it demands independent action by the working class, equipped with a Marxist analysis of fascism's class origins and lessons from the disastrous defeat of 1933.

The Official Narrative: Enlightenment Without Politics

The German state’s portrayal of the IfZ edition was consistently uniform. Its critical apparatus—comprising nearly 2,000 pages, 3,500 footnotes, and detailed contextual commentary—was designed as a form of intellectual cleansing. By positioning scholarly corrections, historical clarifications, and condemnations of Hitler's pseudo-scientific racism alongside his text, the edition was said to have "defanged” the book. It was claimed that readers would be protected from its ideological influence.

This narrative is built on two incorrect assumptions. First, it believes fascism mainly revolves around false ideas, and the real threat comes from those ideas spreading unchecked. If the public can be led to see Hitler’s mistakes, the danger is considered eliminated. This view reflects a liberal perspective, seeing fascism as a corrupt way of thinking rather than a result of social and political forces. Second, it presumes that Germany’s postwar government has already addressed the fundamental political and historical issues related to Nazism. The annotated edition is portrayed as the culmination of Germany’s democratic development—implying that, after confronting its past, Germany can now publish Hitler’s writings without fear of ideological influence. Both assumptions collapse under scrutiny.

The threat of fascism doesn't stem from Mein Kampf itself but from the conditions that cause it to resonate: economic crises, political instability, the collapse of bourgeois democracy, and the ruling class's willingness to adopt authoritarian measures. No amount of footnotes can replace an analysis of these underlying factors. Additionally, the postwar German state failed to address Nazism's legacy fully; it merely suppressed it. De-Nazification was quickly abandoned due to Cold War pressures, as Nazi jurists, bureaucrats, and police officials were reabsorbed into the state.

The Federal Republic sought to suppress this history with legal bans rather than open political debate. Banning Mein Kampf represented political evasion rather than democratic resilience. Consequently, the annotated edition functions more as historical preservation than enlightenment: it makes the text academically accessible by removing it from the social forces that produced it.

The Bestseller Lists: A Symptom of Political Crisis

The commercial success of the IfZ edition was dismissed as a harmless curiosity, but it actually served as a warning. Its rise to bestseller status occurred amid a backdrop that included the ascent of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the mainstreaming of anti-refugee policies by established parties, the resurgence of far-right movements across Europe, and the weakening of the postwar political consensus amid capitalist crises. The fact that a scholarly edition, rather than a cheap pamphlet, topped the charts tells us little about its readers' political leanings. However, it confirms a significant public appetite for direct engagement with the foundational text of National Socialism. The German ruling class has spent decades pretending this interest didn't exist, but the bestseller lists show otherwise.

This appetite is intentional, reflecting a political climate where nationalism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism have been normalised by the very parties claiming to uphold democracy. The AfD did not appear out of nowhere; CDU/CSU, SPD, and FDP policies shaped it —both indirectly and directly—by long prioritising austerity, militarism, and anti-refugee rhetoric, which the far right later exploited. The resurgence of Mein Kampf thus signals a ruling class that, facing its deepest crisis since World War II, is once again willing to legitimise the extreme right.

The IfZ edition thoroughly corrects historical inaccuracies but omits discussion of fascism's political economy. This omission is deliberate and highlights the ideological boundaries of bourgeois historiography. A comprehensive analysis of fascism should examine: the involvement of German big business in funding the Nazi Party, the class forces opposing the German Communist Party (KPD) and Social Democracy (SPD), and the culpability of reformist and Stalinist leaders whose policies hindered the working class.

The key cause of the 1933 disaster was the Comintern’s embrace of the "social fascism" theory in 1928. Guided by Stalin, the KPD labelled Social Democracy as fascism's "twin" and cut all relations with SPD workers. By 1931, the KPD even partnered with the Nazis in the Prussian Landtag referendum to remove the SPD-led government — an act Trotsky predicted as a major mistake. Trotsky’s insights remain crucial: Social Democracy relies on the working class for support and cannot stay in power without it. Fascism, however, depends on the petty bourgeoisie and must destroy workers’ organisations to solidify itself. Comparing the two was “absolute balderdash,” leaving Europe’s strongest working class vulnerable at its greatest peril.

The 1933 defeat was not unavoidable; it resulted from leadership betrayals—Stalinist sectarianism on one side and Social Democratic capitulation on the other. The working class was not overwhelmed by a lack of revolutionary potential but because its organisations were led by groups opposed to revolutionary unity. This perspective is missing from the IfZ edition because it highlights the class nature of fascism and the ruling class's role in its rise. Bourgeois historiography cannot openly recognise this without challenging the legitimacy of the current order.

The resurfacing of Mein Kampf coincides with a political shift in Germany that reflects, albeit distorted, the patterns of the early 1930s. The AfD has transformed from a protest party into a far-right entity deeply embedded in state institutions, with connections in the police, military, and intelligence agencies. Its rhetoric mirrors the ideological themes of National Socialism, including ethnonationalism, historical revisionism, and disdain for parliamentary democracy. More significantly, the traditional parties have facilitated its growth. The SPD and CDU have pursued austerity measures that weakened social protections and increased political unrest. The political elite has adopted militarism, rearmament, and a more assertive foreign policy stance. Anti-immigrant rhetoric has become mainstream, normalising xenophobic narratives that the AfD merely echoes.

The current threat isn’t just the AfD itself, but the fact that the ruling elite is once again preparing to work with the far right, as its predecessors did in the early 1930s. The parties now claiming to “stop the AfD” are actually the ones responsible for creating the conditions that allowed its growth. The popularity of Mein Kampf must be seen in this same light; it’s not merely a cultural artefact but a political warning. Much of the liberal discussion on fascism rests on the idea that the working class is no longer a revolutionary force, but this is an ideological assumption, not a factual analysis.

The Frankfurt School, reflecting on the failures of the 1930s, argued that the working class had been incorporated into mass consumer society. Postmodernism expanded this outlook into a broader rejection of class politics. Modern liberal anti-fascism carries this sense of discouragement, viewing fascism mainly as a cultural or psychological issue rather than a class-related one. Consequently, the approach shifts from active struggle to educational methods, relying on footnotes rather than organisation and emphasising classroom “awareness” over large-scale mobilisation.

Marxism asserts that the working class is the only force capable of preventing fascism, which it sees as a tool used by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. The 1933 defeat stemmed from leadership failures, not the working class itself. These lessons are still urgent today. The reappearance of Mein Kampf on Germany’s bestseller lists is not an isolated incident but a sign of the current political climate, where the ruling class, facing a severe crisis in its postwar order, is once again willing to endorse and rehabilitate the far right.

The response to this threat cannot be limited to classroom discussions or footnotes. It demands a Marxist analysis of fascism’s class origins, a critical view of bourgeois democracy’s stability, and the independent political activism of the working class. While the annotated edition of Mein Kampf may correct Hitler’s historical inaccuracies, it cannot explain the causes of fascism’s rise, its victory, or its resurgence today. Only a movement grounded in the political economy of capitalism — equipped with the lessons of 1933 — can effectively confront fascism in the twenty-first century. This is not an academic issue but a political one, and it is urgent.

 

Freedom Ship and the Revolutionary Logic of Flight: Marcus Rediker’s Maritime History of Self Emancipation

Marcus Rediker’s Freedom Ship: The Uncharted History of Escaping Slavery by Sea prompts a revaluation of the geography of American slavery and the various forms of resistance that challenged it. For over a century, popular culture has been shaped by a sentimental portrayal of the Underground Railroad: candlelit attics, devout Quakers, heroic white “conductors,” and grateful fugitives guided north by kind-hearted people. This myth, repeatedly shown in textbooks, museums, and liberal media, acts as a political opiate. It reassures the descendants of slaveholders and Northern allies by emphasising white kindness in emancipation, while downplaying Black agency. As Rediker’s own blurb suggests, it serves as an “alibi for whiteness.”

Rediker’s book disputes the common myth by showing that the fight against slavery extended beyond liberal America's pastoral ideals and was rooted in the docks, wharves, and ships of the Atlantic economy, an often-overlooked proletarian landscape of resistance. The waterfronts of Charleston, Savannah, Norfolk, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston make up what Rediker calls the “Blue Highway”: a maritime route known for mobility, communication, and interracial solidarity, which the slaveholding elite deeply feared. The core argument is that if accepted, it necessitates a major shift in how historians understand resistance to slavery: possibly up to 100,000 enslaved people escaped by sea rather than land. This isn’t a trivial change; it's a significant shift in our understanding of the geography of self-emancipation.

The Maritime Proletariat and the Geography of Resistance

Rediker depicts a world where enslaved individuals exploited the weaknesses of the maritime economy: its mobility, reliance on Black labour, interracial crews, and porous borders to achieve freedom. The book is rich with tales of bravery and ingenuity: Frederick Douglass escaping Baltimore dressed as a sailor, Harriet Jacobs fleeing North Carolina by sea after hiding in an attic for years, Jonathan Walker branded “SS” for his attempts at slave theft, and William P. Powell’s Coloured Sailors’ Home serving secretly as a centre of information and support.

The book’s greatest strength lies not just in its individual stories but in its depiction of the social infrastructure that supported maritime self-emancipation. Rediker estimates about 20,000 Black sailors, both free and enslaved, operated across the Atlantic and coastal trade during the antebellum period. These sailors served on interracial crews, frequented interracial boarding-houses and taverns, and built communication networks spanning from New Orleans to Boston. The circulation of David Walker’s Appeal, smuggled into Southern ports sewn into sailors’ clothing, embodies this world: a radical document carried by radical workers deep into the heart of the slave system.

The slaveholding class was well aware of the threat the docks posed. Their reaction to the Negro Seamen Acts  , which mandated the imprisonment of Black sailors during their ships' port visits,  shows a ruling elite conscious of the docks' volatile nature. These laws were more than bureaucratic measures; they served as tools of terror to break the bonds between enslaved communities and maritime workers. Their existence highlights the waterfront's crucial role in slavery politics.

This is Rediker at his strongest. He exposes the Underground Railroad mythology as an ideological project designed to obscure the fact that the overwhelming engine of emancipation was Black self‑activity, supported by a genuinely interracial working-class milieu. He restores the maritime world to its rightful place in the geography of resistance. He demonstrates that the struggle against slavery was not confined to the pastoral imagination of liberal America but surged through the arteries of the Atlantic economy.

Du Bois and the Theory of Self‑Emancipation

To fully understand the significance of Rediker’s contributions, it is important to situate them within the tradition set by W.E.B. Du Bois in Black Reconstruction in America (1935). Du Bois argued that the enslaved were not simply passive recipients of freedom; instead, they actively participated in a broad strike against slavery. Their widespread escape to Union lines, refusal to serve their enslavers, and enlistment in the Union Army played a vital role in defeating the Confederacy.

Rediker’s maritime fugitives are an integral part of this tradition, not just isolated heroes but active participants in a broader self-emancipation movement that Du Bois identified as the driving force behind the Civil War. The docks and wharves of the Atlantic economy were more than mere peripheral locations; they functioned as centres of working-class resistance that challenged and destabilized the slave system.

Rediker does not fully position his analysis within Du Bois’s revolutionary framework. He acknowledges important aspects of self-emancipation but misses the dialectical process that turns individual acts of flight into pivotal historical moments. Du Bois held that self-emancipation becomes truly revolutionary only when it profoundly transforms the state. While Rediker alludes to this concept, he does not thoroughly investigate or articulate it.

Oakes, Hahn, and the Political Economy of Emancipation

James Oakes and Steven Hahn expand Du Bois’s analysis by situating self-emancipation within the Civil War's political economy. Oakes contends that the Republican Party, representing a free-labour bourgeoisie, entered the war with the goal of undermining slavery, using this political opportunity for enslaved people to turn the conflict into a revolutionary fight. Hahn, on the other hand, highlights the long-standing history of Black political activism ranging from maroon communities to rural uprisings that influenced the politics of emancipation.

Rediker’s maritime fugitives fit naturally within this historiographical landscape. They were part of a wider resistance movement that included plantation uprisings, rural insurrections, and wartime mobilisations. Their actions played a role in sparking a political crisis that compelled the Republican Party to face the slaveholding class. Their escapes challenged property rights, showed the limits of coercion, and highlighted the structural weaknesses of the slave system.

However, Rediker does not embed his material within the broader political economy of the Civil War. He details the influence maritime flight had on the slave system but does not illustrate how this pressure was integrated into the fundamental conflict between two opposing labour systems, enslaved and free, that erupted in 1861. Oakes and Hahn offer the analytical framework missing in Rediker’s work: a theory explaining how self-emancipation interacts with political crises to drive revolutionary change.

Marx and the Destruction of Slave Property Relations

Marx viewed slavery not simply as a moral failing but as a particular type of labour exploitation integral to capitalism's rise. He believed the Civil War represented a bourgeois revolution, with the slave-owning elite, a reactionary part of the ruling class, being overthrown by armed conflict. Marx also recognised that the enslaved individuals, through mass escapes and fighting, played an active role in driving revolutionary change, not just as victims.

Rediker’s book offers the empirical evidence that Marx’s theory requires. The maritime proletariat—interracial, mobile, and essential to the economy—resulted directly from capitalist growth. Atlantic docks and wharves were focal points where the conflicts between slavery and capitalism were most intense. Fugitives escaping by sea sought not only personal freedom but also to challenge the property relations of the slave system.

Rediker does not position his work within Marx’s revolutionary theory. Instead, he highlights the bravery of individual fugitives but doesn't explain how their actions impacted the abolition of slave property relations. While he reconstructs the social landscape of the maritime proletariat, he fails to analyse its influence on wider capitalist development. Although Marx offers the theoretical framework that Rediker’s book hints at, it does not fully provide it.

The Limits of “History from Below”

Rediker’s approach, organising a series of episodes by port, creates a vivid social history but lacks political analysis. While the book is filled with compelling human stories, it offers limited insight into the underlying processes. It captures the raw elements of revolution but does not follow the development of revolutionary movements. This omission matters; it highlights a core structural limitation inherent in the “history from below” tradition that Rediker has helped shape.

Over the past forty years, Marcus Rediker has established himself as a uniquely influential and politically impactful historian within the Anglo-American academic world. His work is notable not just for its focus on sailors, enslaved Africans, pirates, dockworkers, and fugitives, but also for its methodological and political approach. At a time when much historical scholarship has shifted towards cultural micro-analysis, racial-moral essentialism, or liberal sentimentality, Rediker remains committed to emphasising collective agency, class struggle, and the violent rise of capitalism. His scholarship challenges prevailing historiographical trends, even if it doesn't entirely depart from them.

Rediker’s body of work, including titles like *Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea*, *Villains of All Nations*, *The Slave Ship*, *The Many-Headed Hydra*, *Outlaws of the Atlantic*, *The Fearless Benjamin Lay*, and now *Freedom Ship*, represents a unified intellectual effort. It aims to chronicle the history of the Atlantic world from the perspective of the marginalised, uncovering the experiences and actions of those whose labour built the early capitalist system and whose resistance constantly challenged its stability. This is not merely "history from below” in a superficial sense; it is a structured history—an exploration of how exploited and oppressed groups influenced the evolution of capitalism through their work and rebellion.

The first type is liberal humanitarianism, which views slavery as a moral tragedy addressed through isolated acts of white benevolence. This approach has shaped the well-known imagery of the Underground Railroad: candlelit attics, benevolent Quakers, and heroic conductors—creating a narrative that, as Rediker’s critics point out, serves as an excuse for whiteness. It sentimentalises resistance, personalises agency, and masks the structural violence inherent in the slave system.

The second form is racial essentialism, exemplified by the 1619 Project and similar efforts. It depicts American history as a continuous battle between whiteness and Blackness, often neglecting class dynamics, capitalist evolution, and political economy. Instead, it portrays race as an independent force that exists outside historical context. This approach leads to a historical narrative that is morally reactive but lacking in analytical depth, loud in political stance yet superficial in historical understanding.

Rediker’s work counters both common tendencies. His histories avoid sentimentality and essentialism. They employ a materialist approach, even if not using explicitly Marxist language. He demonstrates that interracial solidarities were real and significant; that enslaved individuals were active agents rather than passive victims; that the maritime economy was a space of both exploitation and resistance; and that the slaveholding class viewed the docks as a structural threat.

His latest book, *Freedom Ship*, clearly illustrates this challenge by suggesting that tens of thousands, possibly up to 100,000, enslaved individuals escaped by sea rather than land. Accepting this shifts how historians understand resistance to slavery, replacing the traditional Underground Railroad imagery with the docks, wharves, and ship decks of the Atlantic economy. The waterfront becomes a space of movement, communication, and interracial cooperation, which the slaveholding class feared greatly.

Rediker depicts a world where enslaved people leverage vulnerabilities in the maritime economy—such as its mobility, reliance on Black labour, interracial crews, and porous boundaries—to achieve their liberation. He estimates that around 20,000 Black sailors participated in the coastal trade during the antebellum period. These sailors worked on interracial crews, stayed in interracial boarding-houses and taverns, and built communication networks from New Orleans to Boston. A notable example is the circulation of David Walker’s Appeal, which was secretly smuggled into Southern ports sewn into sailors’ clothing, symbolising this interconnected world: a radical message carried by radical workers into the core of the slave system.

The slaveholding class clearly recognised the threat. Their reaction, the Negro Seamen Acts, mandated the detention of Black sailors during their ships' port visits, demonstrating an elite conscious of the volatile dockside environment. These laws were more than mere regulations; they served as tools of intimidation aimed at breaking bonds between enslaved groups and maritime workers. Their existence underscores the waterfront's critical role in slavery’s political landscape.

However, Rediker’s work also highlights some limitations of the “history from below” approach. While his narratives are detailed and human, they tend to lack deep political analysis. He covers the instances of revolution, solidarity, and sabotage—the raw elements—yet does not fully connect these actions to the larger revolutionary upheaval that led to the abolition of slavery. In this context, the perspectives of W.E.B. Du Bois, James Oakes, and Steven Hahn are crucial.

Du Bois recognized that self-emancipation only gains historical significance when it intersects with a change in the state. Oakes explained how the Republican Party, representing a free-labor bourgeoisie, served as the political platform for enslaved people to turn the Civil War into a revolutionary movement. Hahn highlighted the extensive history of Black political activism that influenced the politics of emancipation.

Rediker’s maritime fugitives fit within this tradition, but his work doesn’t explicitly situate them there. He restores agency but stops short of explaining how agency leads to revolution. He rebuilds the social world of the maritime proletariat but doesn’t examine its part in dismantling slave property relations. While his work offers an important correction to liberal historiography, it remains incomplete as a Marxist synthesis.

Nevertheless, Rediker’s contribution remains significant. He has repositioned the Atlantic working class at the core of early modern history. His work demonstrates that resistance was systemic rather than isolated events. He also contests the racial-moral narratives prevalent in today’s discussions. Furthermore, he offers the empirical basis needed for developing a more comprehensive Marxist explanation of slavery’s downfall.

Freedom Ship is a truly valuable book that reestablishes the maritime world’s role in resistance history. It reveals the interracial working-class solidarities long suppressed by bourgeois narratives and challenges the liberal notion that white benevolence alone led to Black liberation. However, it stops short of offering a complete Marxist view of emancipation, which emphasizes the dialectical unity of self-activity and revolutionary crisis, individual bravery, class struggle, flight, and armed insurrection under the Union’s banner. The broader challenge—showing that slavery was ended not by moral sentiment but through revolution—remains. It is the task of Marxist historiography to demonstrate that enslaved people were not merely passengers on a “Freedom Ship,” but active participants in overthrowing a reactionary ruling class.

Notes

 

I. Major Works by Marcus Rediker

These are the core monographs that define Rediker’s contribution to Atlantic, maritime, and labour history.

• Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Merchant Seamen, Pirates, and the Anglo‑American Maritime World, 1700–1750 Cambridge University Press, 1987.
• The Many‑Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic Beacon Press / Verso, 2000. (with Peter Linebaugh)
• Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age Beacon Press / Verso, 2004.
• The Slave Ship: A Human History Viking, 2007.
• The Amistad Rebellion: An Atlantic Odyssey of Slavery and Freedom Viking‑Penguin, 2012.
• Outlaws of the Atlantic: Sailors, Pirates, and Motley Crews in the Age of Sail Beacon Press / Verso, 2014.
• The Fearless Benjamin Lay: The Quaker Dwarf Who Became the First Revolutionary Abolitionist Beacon Press, 2017.
• Prophet Against Slavery: Benjamin Lay (Graphic History) Beacon Press, 2021. (with David Lester and Paul Buhle)
• Freedom Ship: The Uncharted History of Escaping Slavery by Sea Viking, 2025.

II. Edited Volumes

Rediker has co‑edited several major collections that broaden the historiography of Atlantic labour, mutiny, and forced migration.

• Many Middle Passages: Forced Migration and the Making of the Modern World University of California Press, 2007. (with Emma Christopher & Cassandra Pybus)
• Mutiny and Maritime Radicalism in the Age of Revolution: A Global Survey Cambridge University Press, 2013. (with Niklas Frykman, Clare Anderson & Lex Heerma van Voss)
• A Global History of Runaways: Workers, Mobility, and Capitalism, 1650–1850 University of California Press, 2019. (with Titas Chakraborty & Matthias van Rossum)
• Who Built America? Working People and the Nation’s Economy, Politics, Culture, and Society, Volume 1 Pantheon Books, 1989.

III. Selected Scholarly Articles

A sample of Rediker’s most influential academic articles.

• “The Many‑Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, and the Atlantic Working Class in the Eighteenth Century.” Journal of Historical Sociology 3 (1990).
• “Under the Banner of King Death: The Social World of Anglo‑American Pirates, 1716–1726.” William and Mary Quarterly (1981).
• “The Poetics of History from Below.” Perspectives on History (AHA), 2010.
• “Reflections in History from Below.” Trashumante: Revista Americana de Historia Social (2022).
• “Escaping Slavery by Sea in Antebellum America: A Labor History.” Mundos do Trabalho (Brazil), 2022.
• “Good Hands, Stout Heart, and Fast Feet: The History and Culture of Working People in Early America.” Labour/Le Travail 10 (1982).

IV. Public Writing and Commentary

Rediker’s public‑facing essays extend his historiographical project into contemporary debates.

• “Enlightenment from Below: Pirates and Radical Democracy in Madagascar.” The Nation (2023).
• “Staughton Lynd’s Radicalism from Below.” The Nation (2022).
• “Julius S. Scott Captured the Haitian Revolution’s Emancipatory Reach.” Jacobin (2021).
• “Serendipity in the Archives.” Public Seminar (2021).
• “The Forgotten Prophet.” Aeon (2018).
• “You’ll Never Be as Radical as This 18th‑Century Quaker Dwarf.” New York Times (2017).
• “America’s Dark Page.” The American Scholar (2008).
• “Atonement for Slave Trade.” Los Angeles Times (2008).
• “Slavery: A Shark’s Perspective.” Boston Globe (2007).

V. Secondary Scholarship and Context

These works are essential for situating Rediker within the broader historiographical tradition of Atlantic labour, slavery, and revolution.

Foundational Marxist and Atlantic Historiography

• W.E.B. Du Bois — Black Reconstruction in America (1935).
• C.L.R. James — The Black Jacobins (1938).
• Eric Williams — Capitalism and Slavery (1944).
• Peter Linebaugh — Stop, Thief! (2014).
• Julius S. Scott — The Common Wind (2018).

Contemporary Scholarship on Emancipation and Agency

• James Oakes — Freedom National (2012); The Scorpion’s Sting (2014).
• Steven Hahn — A Nation Under Our Feet (2003).
• Stephanie Smallwood — Saltwater Slavery (2007).
• Vincent Brown — Tacky's Revolt (2020).

Reviews of Rediker’s Work

• Eric Foner, “Review of Freedom Ship,” New York Review of Books (2025).
• Numerous reviews in Journal of American History, William and Mary Quarterly, International Review of Social History, etc.

VI. Suggested Citation Format (Chicago)

Book Rediker, Marcus. The Slave Ship: A Human History. New York: Viking, 2007.

Article Rediker, Marcus. “The Many‑Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, and the Atlantic Working Class in the Eighteenth Century.” Journal of Historical Sociology 3 (1990): 225–252.

Edited Volume Christopher, Emma, Cassandra Pybus, and Marcus Rediker, eds. Many Middle Passages: Forced Migration and the Making of the Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.