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.
>>2900637>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. I have seen the right call this "spiritually true." This has always been the case btw. This is how they respond to racist caricatures in political cartoons for example: "It's spiritually true"
But you also see the inverse of this where Van Jones went on TV and called the genocide of Palestinians fake and used an example of a handful of AI videos (which were probably created by mossad to discredit the allegations) as a way to dismiss the entire thing as fake.
>>2902184>But you also see the inverse of this where Van Jones went on TV and called the genocide of Palestinians fake and used an example of a handful of AI videos (which were probably created by mossad to discredit the allegations) as a way to dismiss the entire thing as fake.Just posting rq before work but I think even if we accept some AI generated fake Pro-Palestine propaganda, that isn't really harmful in the long run.
This is something that hurts to hear for a few people. Like we generally, as people, want to be on the side of honesty and truth and all that. But as the old saying goes a lie travels the world in the time it takes the truth to tie it's shoes. I think in the long run Van Jones trying to "discredit" the Genocide accusations by saying "well some stuff is faked" wont do that much harm.
Shamelessly bumping the thread because I think we can still get some fun discussions out of this. But to at least make this bump interesting, I thought I'd write a little more about Sorel.
Now one of the critiques I've heard levied at Sorel is he's too much of an idealist or in some way "non-Marxist". Now Sorel himself would be considered heterodox or revisionist, but his stance on Marx wasn't "Marx was wrong". He'd quote Marx, reference Marx, it was undeniable that Marx was so central to his political thought that there likely wouldn't be a Sorel without a Marx!
Where Sorel diverged is that he eventually came to grow deeply cynical of the Marxists of his time; he believed they'd lost their revolutionary essence as it were. He saw self-proclaimed "Marxists" adopt what we'd maybe call "Vulgar Materialism" and surrender the fight based on some misguided kind of determinism: "Capitalism will collapse and Communism will come about, so why do I have to leave my armchair?" And he became deeply resentful of "Socialists" that adopted reformist attitudes and became little better than bourgeois parliamentarians.
So I figured I'd focus on a work that connects both Marx and Sorel: The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Other than being underrate, I think this work provides one of the strongest cases for Sorel's thought not being divorced from Marx's.
I believe the first chapter has the strongest point of comparison between what Marx wrote and what Sorel would later proclaim:
>Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise […] Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95.
Marx's writes of previous revolutions and world-historic figures "disguising" themselves by invoking the "spirits of the past". This isn't too dissimilar to Sorel discussing how revolutionary movements develop a sense of motive-force by indulging in great "myths". However many young Marxists may dismiss this as merely superstructure, which they errantly think is "unimportant" or just totally ancillary to material conditions; what's fascinating is that Marx himself doesn't handwave these costumes as entirely unimportant window dressing. Further down:
>But unheroic though bourgeois society is, it nevertheless needed heroism, sacrifice, terror, civil war, and national wars to bring it into being. And in the austere classical traditions of the Roman Republic the bourgeois gladiators found the ideals and the art forms, the self-deceptions, that they needed to conceal from themselves the bourgeois-limited content of their struggles and to keep their passion on the high plane of great historic tragedy. Similarly, at another stage of development a century earlier, Cromwell and the English people had borrowed from the Old Testament the speech, emotions, and illusions for their bourgeois revolution. When the real goal had been achieved and the bourgeois transformation of English society had been accomplished, Locke supplanted Habakkuk.
Marx is explicitly saying that the Bourgeois needed these mythic images of the ancient Roman Republic or, in the case of England, the Old Testament in order to fulfill their historic, progressive aims. It was not mere window-dressing, but in fact a vital part of their revolutionary strategy. What he argues for in the 18th Brumaire isn't to disregard mythmaking, far from it, but for the aims of Socialist revolutionaries to go beyond some subservience or parody of the past. And it should be noted that when Sorel discussed myths, he was quite clear that he saw the Marxian "Catastrophic Revolution" and the Syndicalist general strike as potent myths in and of themselves, which stand on their own merits, not something that needed to be "disguised" as a thing of the past.
Sorel himself quotes Marx's 18th Brumaire, in his short work "The Dreyfusian Revolution" stating much of what I just said above:
>The men of the revolution asked of Greco-Roman memories the means needed to raise their hearts to the level necessary to support titanic struggles. But in 1848 there was a comedy with nothing of the serious about it. They had given themselves the air of reproducing something of the Revolution in order to have the right to pass the time in parades and, in doing so, avoiding the difficulties presented by current problems.
>These observations are not precisely exact. The Revolution is protected by the glory that France acquired in the wars of Liberty, but it was just as ridiculous as its imitation in 1848. As soon as the new society acquired its definitive constitution the revolutionaries’ Greco-Roman disguises were looked upon as perfectly grotesque, and the great men of Liberty were judged without the least indulgence.
Sorel acknowledges the Brumaire with a touch of humor. Throughout the Dreyfusian Revolution he chuckles at the absurdity that accompanied that seemingly epoch defining event, sneering at the playwright Emile Zola weeping about how much he was suffering because he was bored in his exile in England. The disguises and poetry of the past, while accepted wholly and passionately at the moment, are looked back in retrospect with a sense of mild embarrassment or ridiculousness, perhaps like how we'd look at the hippie movement today.
What Sorel wished for from myths was what the Dreyfus affair and mere cosplaying couldn't deliver: a total rupture and destruction of the liberal state. He didn't read the 18th Brumaire and dismiss Marx, rather he followed Marx's logic to the following conclusion: that mass psychology and passionate belief could motivate the great mass of people towards decisive action, and whether that was for good or ill was dependent on how myths were utilized.