From Anarchist Front
January 5, 2026
The turning of a part of society towards the forces known as the “left” or “pluralist forces” cannot be reduced simply to the media success of rival currents, including the Pahlavis. Although these forces have been able to effectively exploit existing gaps, these gaps were already formed in the social context and in the relationship between a part of the left and the lifeworld of society. The main problem is not simply a failure in the field of narrative, but a crisis of social and linguistic connection.
Part of the intellectual elite that is commonly attributed to the left has defined itself in a superior position in terms of language, symbolic position, and way of dealing with society. This superiority is not necessarily due to conscious intention or a desire for domination, but in the social experience of the general public, it is perceived as a kind of guardianship. In this situation, political language speaks not from the heart of the experience of society, but from a position of moral and cultural correction; as if the social reality of the people needs to be reformed, refined, or raised in consciousness.
This gap is exacerbated in moments of crisis and revolution. At such moments, society seeks recognition of its suffering, anger, and insecurity rather than seeking detailed structural analysis. But instead of directly naming this suffering, a section of the left relegates it to macro and abstract concepts, maintaining its distance from the objective experience of society by constantly referring to global structures, global and regional political concerns, and complex theoretical language. The result is that society feels analyzed and advised, not heard.
On the other hand, the constant critique of the common identity-coherent elements, especially national identity, without the ability or will to produce an alternative, cohering one, leads to an identity vacuum. Society cannot have sustainable collective action in a state of rupture and crisis without a minimal “we.” Plurality, if not connected to a common and tangible narrative, leads to dispersion and erosion of power. This vacuum is precisely where competing forces, with simple, emotional, and decisive narratives—even if they are reactionary or fake—gain the upper hand.
In this sense, elitism is more than a fault; it is a social situation: a situation in which the intellectual or political activist sees himself as the leader of society and society as the object of his guidance. Such a view, even if accompanied by emancipatory intentions, suspends the agency of society and leads to the reproduction of a form of elitism. Society senses this suspension and resists it, sometimes by turning to forces that at least provide a sense of belonging and being heard. It is trying to identify and defend who it is.
Nothing
Add new comment