I was thinking of making this thread ages ago, but I couldn't find the right words. I'm still not sure if I'm saying everything I want to here, but I figured at the very least this can create some interesting discussion.
I think there's a convergence right now between the Sorelian conception of political "myths" and the prominence of GenAI slop, especially on The Right. I'm sure most of you have noticed by now that Generative AI has been almost endemic to Right-Wing political movements, even while Data Centers in particular are still grossly unpopular. I don't believe this convergence is intentional, in fact I doubt that most on the political Right even know who Sorel was, but rather I believe the Right has intuited some of Sorel's work without actually reading it. Though entirely unintentional, the specter of Sorelianism has only become more relevant to modern political disputes.
To begin, let's first discuss what Sorel means by a "Myth". He asserts his thesis in his Magnum Opus, "Reflections on Violence" here:
>“In the course of these studies, I have established something so simple that I did not believe it had to be emphasized: men who participate in great social movements represent their immediate action in the form of images of battles assuring the triumph of their cause. I proposed calling these constructions myths, the knowledge of which is so important for the historian: the syndicalist general strike and Marx’s catastrophic revolution are myths. I have given as remarkable examples of myths those which were constructed by early Christianity, the Reformation, the French Revolution and by Mazzini’s followers. I wanted to show that it is not necessary to try to analyze such systems of images in the same way that one breaks down something into its elements; that they should be taken as a whole and as historical forces; that it is necessary above all to keep from comparing the accomplished facts with the images which men had adopted prior to action.”
<Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence, Page 20, Cambridge Texts Edition
The emphasis on the word "images" is my own, as I feel that's directly relevant to the tidal wave of AI slop we see coming from The Right Wing today. Now I should mention that though Sorel uses the term "images" he doesn't necessarily mean a literal picture or painting. The images Sorel refers to could exist as ethereally as in the mind's eye. What matters for the sake of politics is that these images are conceptualized collectively and depict triumphant battles against an enemy.
To try to break this down simply; Sorel believed that myths provided a crucial motive force, that regardless of their relationship to the actual reality of the conflict, they motivate people to become partisans within that conflict. For example, one such myth he references was that of Early Christianity. Historically, Christianity existed in the space of an End Times movement, several early Christians earnestly believed Christ was coming and that by dying as martyrs they would be rewarded in the hereafter. Indeed, contemporary Roman sources would even occasionally remark that Christians would willingly turn themselves in to authorities in hopes of achieving martyrdom. It doesn't matter that the myth Christians conceptualized for themselves didn't literally happen, as Christ didn't return in their lifetimes to usher in the Last Judgement. Rather that myth motivated Christians to proselytize, to suffer martyrdom, and ultimately led to the Christianization of the Roman Empire.
It was important to Sorel that images depict conflict to be elevated to the status of "myth"; images which merely depict perfect or idealized society, Sorel thought, merely indulged in Utopianism which would lead to reformism.
>“As long as there are no myths accepted by the masses, one may go on talking of revolts indefinitely without ever provoking any revolutionary movement; this is what gives such importance to the general strike and renders it so odious to socialists who are afraid of revolution; they do all they can to shake the confidence felt by the workers in the preparations they are making for the revolution; and in order to succeed in this they cast ridicule on the idea of the general strike, which alone has a value as a motive force. One of the chief means employed by them is to represent it as a utopia; this is easy enough, as there are very few myths which are perfectly free from any utopian element.
>The revolutionary myths which exist at the present time are almost pure; they allow us to understand the activity, the sentiments, and the ideas of the masses as they prepare themselves to enter on a decisive struggle; they are not descriptions of things but expressions of a will to act. A utopia is, on the contrary, an intellectual product; it is the work of theorists who, after observing and discussing the facts, seek to establish a model to which they can compare existing societies in order to estimate the amount of good and evil they contain; it is a combination of imaginary institutions having sufficient analogies to real institutions for the jurist to be able to reason about them; it is a construction which can be broken into parts and of which certain pieces have been shaped in such a way that they can (with a few alterations) be fitted into future legislation. — Whilst contemporary myths lead men to prepare themselves for a combat which will destroy the existing state of things, the effect of utopias has always been to direct men’s minds towards reforms which can be brought about by patching up the system; it is not surprising then that so many believers in utopias were able to develop into able statesmen when they had acquired greater experience of political life. — A myth cannot be refuted since it is, at bottom, identical to the convictions of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is, in consequence, unanalysable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions. A utopia, on the other hand, can be discussed like any other social constitution; the spontaneous movements it presupposes can be compared with those actually observed in the course of history, and we can in this way evaluate their verisimilitude; it is possible to refute it by showing that the economic system on which it has been made to rest is incompatible with the necessary conditions of modern production.”
<Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence, Page 28, Cambridge Edition
That was a lot of words, but in essence: myths prepare a movement for battle and encourage them to do conflict, they're taken "as a whole" rather than being broken into constituent parts. An image of Socialists leading a battalion of tanks towards reactionary holdouts doesn't propose legislation nor can it be broken down into an analysis on mechanized warfare, it must be taken as a whole. Utopias, by contrast, are analyzed on a policy-basis. The very origin of the term "Utopia" in political theory relates back to Saint Thomas More's book, and to this very day people had dissected his idealized society and critiqued his policy proposals.
Back to modernity: as generative AI has been refined and widely distributed, it hasn't been adopted by the "mainstream" of political and cultural opinion, rather it has found purchase in groups which can be coined "cultural insurgencies". It's not mainstream liberal thought that embraced AI image generation, but "populist" right wing movements, freaks, perverts, and the detritus of failed social movements. In the face of rapidly secularizing generations, Evangelical Christians have embraced AI images of Jesus coming to earth to judge the secular world they despise. In the absence of sexual gratification, glassy-eyed internet shut ins use AI to give "woke" video game characters bigger tits or a fatter ass or doll-like facial features. Political orgs like the AfD in Germany or MAGA in America gleefully use AI to paint the world as they perceive it: a Manichean battle between foreign invaders, their effeminate compradors in the West, and chisel-jawed "alpha males" opposing them.
As these movements have claimed power in the political arena and shown their utter inability to govern, it appears they've grown to rely more and more on Sorelian style myths to shore up their support. As Trump's grown older and more incontinent, his most fervent supporters depict him as more virile, more muscular, and more competent than ever. As the Iran war proves itself to be a bungle, the Right Wing internet is awash in depictions of Trump as a "military man", Trump in Uniform, Trump ordering missile strikes, Trump flying fighter jets. What this has done is created a floor of unshakeable faith, around 38% of the country which approves of him, whereas George W. Bush eventually collapsed to 25% support by the end of his second term.
Liberals are hoping, perhaps naively, that there will be some "wake up call" for Trump. That a Bush 2 moment may happen where Trump sees his support completely collapse. That America will grow "tired" of populism and submit to the rule of dull technocrats, but as Sorel himself said:
>The professors of the little science are really difficult to satisfy. They assert very loudly that they will only admit into thought ideas that are clear and distinct; – as a matter of fact, this is a rule which is insufficient for purposes of action, for we do nothing great without the help of warmly coloured and sharply defined images which absorb the whole of our attention;
<Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence, Page 140
A more obvious collapse of the Trump administration would not cause a collapse in his supporters, but rather it would be preceded with even more wild and manic images presaging a final battle with "communist liberals" and "the deep state". The manic distribution of images would be followed by an even greater upswing of political violence. Here is where AI in particular becomes a danger, because what it lacks in quality it compensates with quantity.
Consider how the brain is "tricked" into thinking enough images moving fast enough give the impression of motion. What AI allows is the impression of a certain conflict. In seconds, Right Wingers can have hundreds of photographs that look real enough to impose ideas on the general public. If a person scrolls TikTok or Facebook or Twitter long enough and sees hundreds of AI generated images of London teeming with Muslims, or Blue-Haired Transgenders teaching school kids, or BLM protesters attacking white people, then even if he can recognize on a basic level that the image in front of him is fake, they could blur and coagulate in his subconscious, plant a seed of fascist myth that the Right will meticulously grow. Even if one or two or three images are recognized as fake, if someone sees the same myth depicted day in and day out, hundreds of times, the possibility remains that they'll believe it on some level, they won't be stuck with any one particular image, but THE image of a battle between "western civilization" and "brown hordes".
So how does the Left counter this? In theory it could try to pre-emptively flood the zone: post more AI than ever of Right Wingers being cannibals, being perverts, freaks, "bad" in some way. Whether it could counter-signal to an extent that would obfuscate Right Wing narrative building is unknown. Alternatively it could try to specialize: quality over quantity. Create such striking images of class war that they hold attention longer than the billion images of AI slop the Right puts out. Regardless of what "The Left" broadly chooses, I think it needs to reckon with AI images as something beyond "quaint", but an insidious danger.