Left solidarity requires heterogeneous coalition rather than unity or horizontalism

Evidence

Rethinking solidarity in these terms may help us to give up some tired assumptions. This kind of solidarity doesn’t necessarily entail overarching unity or centralised control. But moving beyond unity needn’t lead us into the flatness of horizontalism, either. Instead of the rigidity of unity — the aspiration for which, ironically, has contributed to the left’s notorious sectarianism — what we need is the coordination of diverse groups, resources and desires. The right have been better postmodernists than us, building successful coalitions out of heterogeneous interest groups without the need for an overall unity. We must learn from them, to start to build a similar patchwork on our side. This is more a logistical problem than a philosophical one. — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 1743

Categorization

  • QUESTION: Fisher died in 2017; the claim that the right builds coalitions without unity now looks complicated by its reliance on unified ethnonationalist identity.
  • XREF: Connects to Fisher’s broader diagnosis of the left’s sectarianism and post-2008 organizing debates elsewhere in K-Punk, and to recent ‘post-liberal’ and popular-front coalition arguments. — connects to: Progressive and conservative neoliberal fusions both yield exclusive solidarity — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 32; Left antipolitics must unify divergent class fractions rather than a single working class; Left-wing populists must unite heterogeneous class fractions without a stable base — Anton JĂ€ger, Hyperpolitics: Extreme Politicization
, 210 (+10 more)

Broader Connections