Buzzwords and The Left
What constitutes a coherent analysis of a given thing? This could be history, economics, politics, anything of this nature. How does one properly examine the elements of these fields? This question is significant in the realm of marxism. In chapter 11 of the philosophy section of Frederick Engels masterpiece Anti-Duhring, there is a discussion of the nature of freedom. Engels says this: "Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends."[1] Building off of the philosopher GWF Hegel's idea that freedom was the insight into necessity, Engels makes the case that for humanity to experience actual freedom, it is necessary for it to grasp the workings of the world around them. This could be the natural world, the world of human relations, or the relationship between human thought and reality. To do this, however, takes a great deal of work. The reality is that the process of coming to understand the world and human society has taken thousands of years. There have been no shortcuts to gain this understanding. To actually gain meaningful knowledge of the world, there has to be a commitment of time and energy towards this work.
With this being said, there are many on the left who reduce complex concepts to the most basic elements. This is vital to developing the foundation for further knowledge. However, it becomes a problem when people never move past this point. What does this look like? The haphazard use of words without a serious investigation of their meaning, or how the concepts they are using have developed over time. Whether it's the use of the word imperialism or how people throw the word fascism around constantly, over time the concepts become muddled, or in some cases become almost meaningless. The analysis loses content, it becomes a mere form. Instead of a well thought out consideration of the matter at hand, it becomes a knee-jerk reaction to an event. What is often lost is a proper historical grounding of what is happening. The concepts become buzzwords. Repeated endlessly with no significance. The prevalence of armchair theoreticians on social media has not helped the matter in the slightest. A lot of people want to have the hottest take, but they, unfortunately, have not realized that the hottest take is often the correct one. And in those cases, they have grievously missed the mark.
When encountered, this phenomenon must be challenged. These important concepts cannot be reduced to mere phrases that garner likes on social media. The proliferation of the concepts on social media can be incredibly important for building consciousness, but that does mean that they must be defanged and made irrelevant. I posed the question at the beginning of this article asking what constitutes proper analysis of a thing. There is no substitute for the actual work of studying the material, gaining the tools of insight, and wielding them to build proper analytical frameworks. When Karl Marx was writing Capital, it was not enough to just say: "Capitalism bad." He spent long, grueling hours going over the history of economics, the political economists who came before him, and the actual functions of capitalism in England at the time. The work that Marx did provided a concrete examination of the content of capitalism. If we are to actually build on the theoretical developments that came before us, we have to be willing to participate in this type of work. As I stated above, there are no shortcuts.
Is Everything Fascist?
In the short work Do Not Knock, Theodor Adorno, the critical theorist and member of the Frankfurt School, opens with this sentiment: "Technification is making gestures in the meantime precise and rough – and thereby human beings."[2] This is an interesting examination of the way that technology is both shaped and helps shape the way humans interact with the world. However, it does not end there. Further in the aphorism, Adorno, infamously, adds this to the discussion: "In the movements which machines demand from their operators, lies already that which is violent, crashing, propulsively unceasing in Fascist mistreatment." [3] From an analysis of how technology relates to how human interaction with the world, to calling these new movements an expression of fascist tendencies. This does not simply cheapen what fascism is, it also muddles the meaning of what fascism actually is. Adorno finds fascism in the simple everyday movements of the world. We are no longer examining something with a concrete history or a concrete existence in the real world. It is now something that envelopes reality. Fascism, in this context, has ceased to be a response to the crisis of capitalism after World War 1. It is now something that encompasses society. It is a nebulous boogeyman that haunts humanity in all of its actions.
This is not analysis, it is a farce. This entire aphorism is a perfect example of turning something into a buzzword. Once the word has been used in this context, it can be used in any context. The meaning of "propulsively unceasing in fascist maltreatment" does not matter anymore. What does matter is that sliding a glass door a little too hard can be seen as fascist maltreatment. Fascism is not tied to politics any longer, it is tied to something that the person doing this form of "analysis" does not like. Adorno's indictment of the functionality of modern technology is a subjective antagonism that he is expressing in objective terms. Fascism as a concept is rendered an empty form that can be filled with any content a person desires. In this way, if a person does not like a thing it can be called fascist. The definition of fascism as something concrete, that has to be understood in its particular manifestations in history disappears in favor of abstract signifiers that change in whatever direction the wind may blow. There are other terms that this process occurs with, but they will be touched on later. The crucial point here is that concept has been historically uprooted and made abstract.
In his work on the concrete and abstract in Marx's capital, the Soviet philosopher EV Ilyenkov explores the way the terms "concrete" and "abstract" have developed throughout the history of human thought. This is important because the way a thinker like Adorno treats fascism, on the conceptual level, is a step backward in the process of analysis of reality. By using fascism haphazardly, by using it to discuss something purely cultural or merely technological, he makes fascism abstract. Ilyenkov, in his work, focuses on the manner in which Marx analyzes the features of capitalism. Marx did not merely attach definitions to concepts at will. He studied the things in their actual existence and development. The particular existence of a thing is the basis for understanding it on the general level. The cognition of fascism, or any concept for that matter, does not arise before it has already started to come into existence in reality. To understand fascism as something concrete, it must be studied from the actually existing examples of it. For a general concept of fascism to be useful, the general definition must be formed out of its particular manifestations. However, the common understanding of fascism is rooted in its purely cultural expressions. The actual economic foundation of fascism is often ignored, or deliberately hidden. A great book for gaining more insight into this economic base of fascism is: Fascism and The Social Revolution.
To return to Adorno, his wanton use of fascism as mere modifier of a noun, reveals a tendency within the thinkers of the western left to completely muddle what fascism actually is. Everyday, a leftist points at a thing and exclaims that it is fascist. With fascism firmly removed from its historical basis, who is to argue with them? Anything and everything can be considered fascist. The term means nothing and the definition is now up for grabs. And so we tumble down into an endless discourse on the proper ways to resist fascism. This could be anything from purchasing the right products, to consuming the right media, to dating the right people, anything but the answer history has given to us in the form of the Soviet Union's brutal fight against it. Even to some self-proclaimed anti-fascist resisters, any form of centralized authority is an expression of fascist cruelty. Reality departs from them, the ideal world conjured from their heads frightens them. Here we have this interesting phenomenon where the leftist sees the entire world as being entirely wrong, where they recognize themselves as a brave soul standing up to the world as it falls into insanity. And they never realize it is the same individualist derangement of the conservatives they mock given a leftist veneer.
Is This Imperialism?
Another word that gets a similar treatment to "fascism" is "imperialism." The breakdown in meaning for this word comes from multiple angles, but those angles have much in common after a closer examination. On one side, you have the individuals who use the word in the context of almost any interaction between countries that are not exactly equal with each other. This interpretation fails from the jump because it's not so much an analysis, as much as it is a deeply held philosophical presupposition. All interactions between countries are immediately met with skepticism, no matter what the actual facts are. The more economically powerful country is assumed to be taking advantage of the less powerful country and that is imperialism. This position reveals a tendency within the American Left to reject the state, on a conceptual level. A state cannot be a good actor in any capacity, so the motivations between a partnership of more powerful country and less powerful country has to be bad from the very moment it comes into existence. The obsession with morality betrays the lack of material concern from many on the left. What gets left out is how a country like the United States uses its own currency as a lever to control other countries, forcing them to trade in the dollar. How the US uses global institutions like the IMF and World Bank to control the flow of investment in other countries. How US banks leverage debt as an asset, to lock countries in financial prisons. How the US locks other countries out of industries higher up in the value chain, to keep them producing raw materials for the US high technology sectors. Imperialism is not just when a state does something to another, its much more than that.
Furthermore, this morality position also leads to imperialism being defined as "Big country attack small country". This is a common framing of the Left that supports Ukraine against what they call "Russian Imperialism". Any sort of consideration for Russia's position in the global economy and the history of NATO expansion after the dissolution of the USSR (16 of the 32 official member states of NATO were added after 1991)[4] has to be ignored for this position to be defensible. At the moment, what must be considered here is the intense US government support of Ukraine before and after the start of the war in 2022. According the US State Department's own website, the US has given almost $67 Billion since the start of the 2022 war to Ukraine and almost $70 Billion since 2014, after the start of the war in the Donbas[5]. The European Union has also contributed a significant amount to Ukraine in military assistance and has earmarked even more funds for projects to restore Ukraine after the war[6]. It would also be pertinent to mention the asset freeze the US and its allies invoked upon Russia after the war started or the sanctions the US placed upon the construction of Russia's Nord Stream pipeline in 2019. Of course, the pipeline was mysteriously destroyed in 2022, with a culprit finally being arrested in 2025, nearly 3 years after the acts of sabotage. Western Imperialism, led by the US has been actively involved in maneuvering pieces to isolate Russia economically and diplomatically.
What is presented as an imperialist conquest on the part of Russia is really a proxy war, where the United States and its allies have essentially financed the war effort for Ukraine with no concern for the people who suffer in the attempt to isolate and bankrupt Russia. The war that started in 2022 did not occur in a vacuum. The US has been putting pressure on Russia for years by expanding NATO to include countries that immediately border Russia and who were formally members of the USSR. Ukraine is no different. After the ousting of the president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, in the 2014 Euromaidon, Ukraine's constitution was updated to include desire to join NATO in 2019[7]. Ukraine had remained non-aligned under Yanukovych[8]. The aggression went even further when in 2019, the US and its NATO allies accused Russia of violating the INF treaty which was signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 that banned the use of intermediate nuclear missiles. The alleged violation on the part of Russia was used as a justification for Donald Trump to pull out of the treaty[9]. The timing of the updated Ukraine constitution and the US and NATO accusations of Russian intermediate missile testing could be a coincidence, but from the established history, that would seem very unlikely.
The supposedly cut and dry nature of the conflict ignores the complex interwoven relations that have occurred over the course of a long period of time. Many on the left want simple, moral conflicts that they can choose a side of to feel good about themselves for supporting the right side. This position requires little study and is not difficult to maintain. A person can present themselves as standing up for the downtrodden, while never investigating why they seem to have the same view as the US state department. Here, a meaningful analysis of what imperialism is, is tossed to the side in favor of the path of least resistance. Not only was this position popular in the immediate aftermath of the war breaking out in early 2022, it can now be used as ammunition by the democrat adjacent left against the Trump administration because of Trump's supposed love of Putin, no matter what the administrations actual policies have been. The geopolitical policy of the US government, in its pursuit of continued dominance of its own "rules based order" and the almighty dollar, is irrelevant. The desire to limit Russia's energy trade with Europe does not matter. All of this falls to the wayside in favor of a simplistic good guy (Ukraine) vs. bad guy (Russia).
The other way that imperialism gets used to the point of it becoming a buzzword is when contemporary marxists use the term to mean exactly what Vladimir Lenin meant in his 1916 pamphlet Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin's classic work is indispensable for learning about the history of Imperialism and how it presented itself in the time period, but it has been over 100 years since the pamphlet was written. The world has changed radically since that time. The analysis of the features of imperialism must be historically updated. To pretend as if Lenin had the final word on imperialism in 1916, is to ignore that marxism is a living body of work which is updated as the world changes. Lenin did not write about the post-World War 2 order dominated by the United States, as he did not live to see it, just as Marx could not write about the fully mature imperialism of Lenin's time. The works of previous Marxists should be used as guidebooks for developing the tools to do our own analysis.
Lenin's analysis of imperialism was building on the work that had come before him, while also recognizing that the capitalism that Marx had written about when Capital, Volume 1 was published in 1867 had developed into something new. The laws discovered by Marx could be used to further develop the theoretical constructions of how capitalism functioned for Lenin's time, just as we can use Lenin's to do the same in our time. Without this theoretical basis, you end up with takes about China being imperialist or how the USSR was imperialist. Why? Because they traded with other countries? Because they exported capital to help with building infrastructure? The realities of trying to build a bulwark against the US-centric global economic order are outside the scope of what Lenin or Marx wrote about. When Marx was alive, England was still the king of Capitalism and Lenin's examination of imperialist inter-rivalry was rooted in the acknowledgment that multiple capitalist countries were industrial powers competing for global domination. The situation has changed and so must our analysis.
Conclusion
This article is not meant to be an exhaustive examination of all the words that have been misused by the Western Left. It's purpose is to tackle two of the most glaring examples that must be combatted if we are to properly build a revolutionary movement. Lenin said that a without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. If our analysis is not rooted firmly in the methodological principles of Marxist analysis, it is going to end up static and one-sided, incapable of properly guiding the path we must take. In our propaganda, our language must be sharp, it must be incisive. These muddled definitions, these abstractions that many on the left still cling to, are the furthest thing from incisive. They lack clarity, they lack coherence. We are not in a position to allow our language to be lackadaisical. These terms cannot become buzzwords that are thrown around with no care for their use. As I stated at the beginning of the article, the type of analysis that leads to a proper theoretical foundation can be only be achieved by hard work. It takes discipline, an iron will, a true commitment to the work. We must be ready to tackle this task.
Bibliography:
1. Engels, Frederick. (1877). Anti-Duhring. Chapter XI. Marxists. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch09.htm
2. Adorno, Theodor. (1951). Minima Moralia. Marxists. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1951/mm/ch02.htm
3. Ibid
4. Nato Website Homepage. Member Countries. Nato. https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html
5. US Department of State. (March 12, 2025). US Security Cooperation with Ukraine. https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/releases/2025/01/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine
6. EU Delegation to US. (July 18, 2025). EU Assistance to Ukraine. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253#:~:text=Over%20$65%20billion%20in%20military,Member%20States%20since%20February%202022.
7. Nato. (June 26, 2025). Relations with Ukraine. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm
8. Ibid.
9. BBC. ( August 2, 2019). INF nuclear treaty: US pulls out of Cold War-era pact with Russia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565