What do you think?
Rate this book
Minority Rule: Adventures in the Culture War
We live under minority rule. But who is the ruling minority?
Most of us are getting screwed over. Our world is defined by inequality, insecurity, lack of community and information overload. As the world burns, mega-corporations are reporting record profits. How are they getting away with it?
'Minority rule' is the term Ash Sarkar uses to describe the irrational fear that minorities are trying to overturn and oppress majority populations. In her eye-opening debut, she reveals how minority elites rule majorities by creating the culture wars that have taken over our politics, stoking fear and panic in our media landscape. Because despite what they'll have you believe, anti-racist campaigners aren't actually silencing the 'forgotten' working class, immigrants aren't eating your pets, trans-activists aren't corrupting your children, and cancel culture isn't crushing free speech.
In Minority Rule, Sarkar exposes how a strategic misdirection of blame over who is really screwing everything up is keeping the majority divided, while the real ruling minority of hedge fund managers, press barons, landlords and corporations remain on top. And it's facilitating one of the biggest power grabs in history. Most crucially, she shows us how what we really have in common is being concealed by a deafening culture of distraction – and that the first step towards a better future is understanding what is happening now, and how we got here.
Most of us are getting screwed over. Our world is defined by inequality, insecurity, lack of community and information overload. As the world burns, mega-corporations are reporting record profits. How are they getting away with it?
'Minority rule' is the term Ash Sarkar uses to describe the irrational fear that minorities are trying to overturn and oppress majority populations. In her eye-opening debut, she reveals how minority elites rule majorities by creating the culture wars that have taken over our politics, stoking fear and panic in our media landscape. Because despite what they'll have you believe, anti-racist campaigners aren't actually silencing the 'forgotten' working class, immigrants aren't eating your pets, trans-activists aren't corrupting your children, and cancel culture isn't crushing free speech.
In Minority Rule, Sarkar exposes how a strategic misdirection of blame over who is really screwing everything up is keeping the majority divided, while the real ruling minority of hedge fund managers, press barons, landlords and corporations remain on top. And it's facilitating one of the biggest power grabs in history. Most crucially, she shows us how what we really have in common is being concealed by a deafening culture of distraction – and that the first step towards a better future is understanding what is happening now, and how we got here.
390 pages, Paperback
First published February 27, 2025
279 people are currently reading
3898 people want to read
About the author
Ash Sarkar
3 books84 followersAshna Sarkar (b. 1992) is an English journalist and libertarian communist political activist. She is a senior editor at Novara Media and teaches at the Sandberg Institute in Amsterdam. Sarkar is a contributor to The Guardian and The Independent.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 233 reviews
March 9, 2025
Journalist and political commentator Ash Sarkar’s one of the most widely-known figures on the British left. Her incredibly accessible, often very witty, book takes as its focus the Culture War. Sarkar reflects both on where the left’s gone astray and how the right has increasingly shaped and reshaped the political conversation. Sarkar’s provocative starting point is essentially a dissection of what the right’s framed as ‘identity politics’ the emphasis on “lived experience” that’s become so dominant in liberal to left circles – so much so that more attention’s likely to be given, for example, to debating whether or not someone like Anne Frank had ‘white privilege’ than on how to address poverty and profound levels of social inequality. At the same time, we’re witnessing the rise of an increasingly feudalistic form of capitalism, in which wealthy individuals and corporations hold much, if not most, of the wealth and much of the power: from Google to Elon Musk, Trump and Jeff Bezos.
Sarkar goes on to examine the ways in which "the reactionary right has harnessed culture wars to promote the idea that those who traditionally occupied a dominant position in society are in danger of being subjugated by those on the margins". Such that politicians like Trump have been able to position themselves as the champions of a beleaguered – predominantly white, hetero and male - social group desperately fending off the incessant demands of the so-called ‘woke’. A stance that’s become something of a smokescreen to distract from what’s really going on in the world. Meanwhile, according to Sarkar – and I find it hard to entirely disagree – the left has become so invested in cultural issues they’re unable to adequately address economic and class-related questions; and that’s led to a severing of connections from traditional forms of collective organisation and resistance, as well as an inability to engage with the broader political landscape.
Sarkar argues this is partly because this emphasis on the personal and the subjective is all-too-often entwined with contemporary capitalism, neoliberalism and the commodification of the self – lean-in feminism is a prime example. So that significant numbers of the liberal left are more caught up in carving out personal space for themselves within contemporary capitalism than in challenging the inequities of the system itself. Moreover, this retreat into specific identity/single-issue silos disrupts possibilities for building broader political movements and coalitions. She contrasts this with past historical movements like Fred Hampton’s Rainbow Coalition which united a cross-section of the downtrodden and disenfranchised from poor, white Appalachians to the Puerto Rican Young Lords to Black Panthers; and the Combahee River Collective’s rooting of their analysis of racism, misogyny and homophobia in a wider, deeply anti-capitalist critique. In turn, while much of the left’s been more or less navel-gazing, the right has weaponised the left’s approach and turned it back against them – for instance challenges to racism have become reconfigured as an attack on the culture and identity of an “oppressed, white working-class”.
Sarkar examines how this might have happened, and why. Whose political interests does it serve? She does so by drawing on a series of case studies and concrete examples: how support for trans communities – a miniscule proportion of the British and/or American population - was reconfigured as near-existential threat, becoming a potent wedge issue that’s massively benefited the right/radical right; how Britain’s ethnically-diverse working-class, once derided by right-wing politicians and pundits as “chavs” were repositioned, viewed through a divisive, racial lens, and transformed into political fodder as prime examples of solely white victimhood. She moves onto explaining the basis of what’s known as ‘rentier capitalism’ what it is, how it works, and how it disadvantages the overwhelming majority.
Throughout she stresses the crucial role media plays in promoting Culture War perspectives, from Britain’s political journalists aka The Lobby to legacy and digital media/platforms. She decries the prioritisation of micro-events like British news stories suggesting “breast-feeding women” were being erased by the NHS in favour of “chest-feeders” – this turned out to be an interesting misreading of guidance issued in Sussex on how to sensitively address its trans service users. She highlights the focus on creating emotional, often fear, responses. It’s an environment in which the sensationalist and the superficial supersede “substantive political engagement.” All of which diverts our attention from facts: like the UK over the course of about sixty years moving from one of the most equal of the richer countries to having the second-highest rate of inequality in the G7, the US is the frontrunner. Or that most of us are now, just barely, renting space on what’s effectively become Planet Landlord. Sarkar’s interventionist perspective’s getting flak from right and left. The right assumes, wrongly, that she advocates abandoning opposition to racism, queerphobia, misogyny; the left frets that her viewpoint may be “corrosive for solidarity.” A furore that underlines just how topical and timely this is.
Sarkar goes on to examine the ways in which "the reactionary right has harnessed culture wars to promote the idea that those who traditionally occupied a dominant position in society are in danger of being subjugated by those on the margins". Such that politicians like Trump have been able to position themselves as the champions of a beleaguered – predominantly white, hetero and male - social group desperately fending off the incessant demands of the so-called ‘woke’. A stance that’s become something of a smokescreen to distract from what’s really going on in the world. Meanwhile, according to Sarkar – and I find it hard to entirely disagree – the left has become so invested in cultural issues they’re unable to adequately address economic and class-related questions; and that’s led to a severing of connections from traditional forms of collective organisation and resistance, as well as an inability to engage with the broader political landscape.
Sarkar argues this is partly because this emphasis on the personal and the subjective is all-too-often entwined with contemporary capitalism, neoliberalism and the commodification of the self – lean-in feminism is a prime example. So that significant numbers of the liberal left are more caught up in carving out personal space for themselves within contemporary capitalism than in challenging the inequities of the system itself. Moreover, this retreat into specific identity/single-issue silos disrupts possibilities for building broader political movements and coalitions. She contrasts this with past historical movements like Fred Hampton’s Rainbow Coalition which united a cross-section of the downtrodden and disenfranchised from poor, white Appalachians to the Puerto Rican Young Lords to Black Panthers; and the Combahee River Collective’s rooting of their analysis of racism, misogyny and homophobia in a wider, deeply anti-capitalist critique. In turn, while much of the left’s been more or less navel-gazing, the right has weaponised the left’s approach and turned it back against them – for instance challenges to racism have become reconfigured as an attack on the culture and identity of an “oppressed, white working-class”.
Sarkar examines how this might have happened, and why. Whose political interests does it serve? She does so by drawing on a series of case studies and concrete examples: how support for trans communities – a miniscule proportion of the British and/or American population - was reconfigured as near-existential threat, becoming a potent wedge issue that’s massively benefited the right/radical right; how Britain’s ethnically-diverse working-class, once derided by right-wing politicians and pundits as “chavs” were repositioned, viewed through a divisive, racial lens, and transformed into political fodder as prime examples of solely white victimhood. She moves onto explaining the basis of what’s known as ‘rentier capitalism’ what it is, how it works, and how it disadvantages the overwhelming majority.
Throughout she stresses the crucial role media plays in promoting Culture War perspectives, from Britain’s political journalists aka The Lobby to legacy and digital media/platforms. She decries the prioritisation of micro-events like British news stories suggesting “breast-feeding women” were being erased by the NHS in favour of “chest-feeders” – this turned out to be an interesting misreading of guidance issued in Sussex on how to sensitively address its trans service users. She highlights the focus on creating emotional, often fear, responses. It’s an environment in which the sensationalist and the superficial supersede “substantive political engagement.” All of which diverts our attention from facts: like the UK over the course of about sixty years moving from one of the most equal of the richer countries to having the second-highest rate of inequality in the G7, the US is the frontrunner. Or that most of us are now, just barely, renting space on what’s effectively become Planet Landlord. Sarkar’s interventionist perspective’s getting flak from right and left. The right assumes, wrongly, that she advocates abandoning opposition to racism, queerphobia, misogyny; the left frets that her viewpoint may be “corrosive for solidarity.” A furore that underlines just how topical and timely this is.
March 13, 2025
Man like Ash Sarkar
August 15, 2025
Ah. The rush of intellectual excitement I felt at the beginning! For it to only fade into disappointment.
At first, the author proposes an intriguing statement that culture wars we see today (such as those between race and gender) are crafted deliberately by the powerful (and the very wealthy) elites to prevent people from noticing their economic exploitation and thus uniting against the ruling class.
While she supports the argument exceptionally well and offers an outstanding critique of identity politics in the first chapters, she soon starts getting personal instead of objective. Historical examples, statistics, and other concrete evidence turn into her own political diary of personal anecdotes, activism, and journalist experience as a brown woman in the UK.
While her stories are relatable, I didn't come here to read a memoir. I wish the author focused on developing her argument precisely by analysis, rather than personal (and regrettably biased) reflections.
At first, the author proposes an intriguing statement that culture wars we see today (such as those between race and gender) are crafted deliberately by the powerful (and the very wealthy) elites to prevent people from noticing their economic exploitation and thus uniting against the ruling class.
While she supports the argument exceptionally well and offers an outstanding critique of identity politics in the first chapters, she soon starts getting personal instead of objective. Historical examples, statistics, and other concrete evidence turn into her own political diary of personal anecdotes, activism, and journalist experience as a brown woman in the UK.
While her stories are relatable, I didn't come here to read a memoir. I wish the author focused on developing her argument precisely by analysis, rather than personal (and regrettably biased) reflections.
January 2, 2025
Minority Rule is a much-needed reality check for the left - it examines how the right have weaponised identity politics against progressives in order to distract and divide us. It brings class consciousness back to the fore, and it doesn't pull its punches in examining how we got here. I loved Ash Sarkar anyway, but now I have a new respect for her ability to draw a clear line from the historical context through the current moment, and forward to what we need to do to reframe the conversation in all our interests. This book comes out in February, and it couldn't be more timely at a moment when it feels like the right is on the rise everywhere and the left has little cohesive response.
Read this if corporations celebrating pride gives you the ick, but not in a bigoted way.
Read this if corporations celebrating pride gives you the ick, but not in a bigoted way.
March 10, 2025
at it’s best when an introspective on the left, Sarkar is evidently incredibly intelligent & knowledgeable on all the issues at hand. unfortunately I don’t feel this book gave me too much by way of new/original perspectives, but it definitely emboldened some beliefs I already had.
March 26, 2025
I was very much convinced by Sarkar’s analysis of contemporary media culture’s splintering of class consciousness, and the vested interests of capital in this splintering. I enjoyed how she formulated the notion of the pundit politician, her articulation of the racial politics of the “white working class”, and how she embedded her thinking in the framework provided by Christophers’ rentier capitalism. At the same time, I thought her foregrounding of neoliberal identity politics as a disruption to coalition building and solidarity was unnuanced. I’m sympathetic to her argument that lived experience should not be the left’s primary mode of political analysis, and that identity can reify/ontologise differences produced by capital, but I thought her arguments here were, at best, strawmen drawn from the more lurid instances of identitarian Twitter beef - and poorly captured how this politics actually plays out in day to day life and organising. Ultimately I think Sarkar’s argument (in this chapter, at least) is hostage to the more reactionary characterisations of identity politics in contemporary media, and this obscured the significant potential here for useful commentary. I don’t understand why the chapter on identity politics was foregrounded both in the book’s structure and in its publicity campaign, especially as the remainder of the book so articulately outlines how ownership classes have attempted to destroy class consciousness - in that light, the charge feels a heavy one to lay at the door of a handful of liberal-left Twitter commentators talking about white privilege.
There is much to like here, and I think Sarkar is great. Her prose is conversational, argumentative, lively and engaging. I found the latter three quarters of the book illuminating and thought-provoking. But for me, this was a missed opportunity.
There is much to like here, and I think Sarkar is great. Her prose is conversational, argumentative, lively and engaging. I found the latter three quarters of the book illuminating and thought-provoking. But for me, this was a missed opportunity.
March 4, 2025
A great class-centric examination of the fearmongering and division tactics the elites have employed to misdirect the blame of growing inequality away from themselves and onto the marginalised and vulnerable. This definitely exceeded my expectations and I'm surprised by just how much I enjoyed it, aside from the football quips.
April 9, 2025
*3.5 Mostly v well communicated and covers a lot of ground. More importantly it ties a lot of different issues and talking points of Austerity Britain together in a comprehensible narrative which is v important IMO. There are a few framings which I feel are problematic/contradictory but I don’t think they present any fundamental flaws of the argument. Mostly it conveys some pretty complex narratives in a way which is accessible and jargon-free. Excited for her next book
May 20, 2025
A well needed read for me atm. Much like "the good immigrant," I would love to put this through the letterboxes of everyone in the county, and maybe then we could all be a little more hopeful of the future.
March 30, 2025
Well written and persuasive, but I was disappointed by the lack of conclusion. The marketing campaign for the book had focused on Ash’s criticism of identity politics. From my reading, this didn’t actually seem that controversial… but maybe that’s because I’m not on Twitter and so am not steeped in the discourse she’s addressing.
She diagnoses societal problems with a Marxist analysis of class-relations (with identity politics presented as a distraction from class solidarity) and there is value in articulating this in an engaging, accessible and relevant way. But the lack of conclusion on next steps is frustrating. So identity politics hasn’t addressed the root causes of inequality, and made things worse by becoming a tool of the right - sure, so what are you suggesting instead? Class solidarity and loose references to organising feel a little half hearted (if important) given the analytical rigour applied throughout the rest of the book. If you’re coming out swinging about the inefficacy of left wing organising in the last decade, I feel like you should at least cautiously posit some ideas on how to do this differently. The chapter on identity politics felt like an opportunity to re-litigate twitter beef, which is a little boring and less relevant than the great analysis in the following chapters.
I found the bits on journalism, the media and creation of ‘white working class’ particularly great.
She diagnoses societal problems with a Marxist analysis of class-relations (with identity politics presented as a distraction from class solidarity) and there is value in articulating this in an engaging, accessible and relevant way. But the lack of conclusion on next steps is frustrating. So identity politics hasn’t addressed the root causes of inequality, and made things worse by becoming a tool of the right - sure, so what are you suggesting instead? Class solidarity and loose references to organising feel a little half hearted (if important) given the analytical rigour applied throughout the rest of the book. If you’re coming out swinging about the inefficacy of left wing organising in the last decade, I feel like you should at least cautiously posit some ideas on how to do this differently. The chapter on identity politics felt like an opportunity to re-litigate twitter beef, which is a little boring and less relevant than the great analysis in the following chapters.
I found the bits on journalism, the media and creation of ‘white working class’ particularly great.
August 18, 2025
It's a readable book, I finished in two days, but I don't really know what the purpose of point of it is. If you already agree with Novara media's politics you'll find yourself agreeing with this book. However the contents span too many issues to make a strong point on any of them with the central theme being the culture wars are a distraction from class consciousness, as well as using the culture wars to justify legislation the public is mostly opposed to.
I think the book suffers from not having the best evidential backing behind its claims - for instance I'm not convinced that the nebulous left can be held accountable for victim/ identity politics as it's presented here, I've actually seen it hypothesised that the identity politics critiqued here is a more direct response to litigation behaviours in companies in the 80's and 90's meaning that corporations became more careful to avoid being sued by employees and former employees leading to changes in language and culture.
The book also is not great with statistics in general, and there are a few moments when the evidence provided feels a bit flimsy for the conclusion drawn.
The best parts are probably when it discusses the media and how culture wars are utilised to legislate against the public's interests.
Overall the book is an interesting recap/ pitstop tour of some of the culture wars that have happened in British politics from a leftist perspective without giving the strongest analysis of the topics mentioned. I don't imagine it will change anyone's mind on any particular issue and I'm not sure I know what the purpose of the book really is but it was interesting as a look at the media from someone who is inside it.
I think the book suffers from not having the best evidential backing behind its claims - for instance I'm not convinced that the nebulous left can be held accountable for victim/ identity politics as it's presented here, I've actually seen it hypothesised that the identity politics critiqued here is a more direct response to litigation behaviours in companies in the 80's and 90's meaning that corporations became more careful to avoid being sued by employees and former employees leading to changes in language and culture.
The book also is not great with statistics in general, and there are a few moments when the evidence provided feels a bit flimsy for the conclusion drawn.
The best parts are probably when it discusses the media and how culture wars are utilised to legislate against the public's interests.
Overall the book is an interesting recap/ pitstop tour of some of the culture wars that have happened in British politics from a leftist perspective without giving the strongest analysis of the topics mentioned. I don't imagine it will change anyone's mind on any particular issue and I'm not sure I know what the purpose of the book really is but it was interesting as a look at the media from someone who is inside it.
May 8, 2025
Readable, engaging and interesting, but beyond the first chapter, Ash doesn’t seem to advance the argument that the Left has both bloated and diluted identity politics to disastrous ends. The chapters on class consciousness and rentierism were the most interesting, but I felt that the overall argument was a bit confused - a tug-of-war between the idea of the Left being obsessed with idpol and of the Right actually driving it. There was less discussion of the Left’s role in this phenomenon, which would have been more interesting as this hasn’t really been considered by the Left in a serious way as yet.
June 3, 2025
A much needed reality check for the left.
Though it seems to contradictory to give 5 stars to a book that made me feel overridden with pessimism about the state of capitalism in this country, it provides a stark message about the need for unification. The book seems to reference and reiterate much of what I believed about the politics and economics of this country, but outlines it with sobering facts and statistics. I would love to say that I feel empowered by this book, and though many of my pre-conceived ideas have been contextualised, it was those ideas which I would prefer not to believe.
‘Through intelligence I am a pessimist, through will I am an optimist’.
Though it seems to contradictory to give 5 stars to a book that made me feel overridden with pessimism about the state of capitalism in this country, it provides a stark message about the need for unification. The book seems to reference and reiterate much of what I believed about the politics and economics of this country, but outlines it with sobering facts and statistics. I would love to say that I feel empowered by this book, and though many of my pre-conceived ideas have been contextualised, it was those ideas which I would prefer not to believe.
‘Through intelligence I am a pessimist, through will I am an optimist’.
June 17, 2025
I didn't agree with 100% but am absolutely on board with the core argument that identity politics and the culture wars have eroded left wing solidarity. Sarkar doesn't pull her punches but I never felt that she's out to provoke just for the sake of it: especially listening to the audiobook this really feels like a book written from the heart. If I have any gripe it's that this feels half of a thesis and I really hope we get Sarkar in rallying to the trenches mode laying out where the left goes from here
September 21, 2025
‘…the odds have always been stacked against justice. You'd never have bet on the success of the abolitionists, or the suffrage movement, or the civil rights struggle, or the fight for abortion access. But courage and collective action are capable of wondrous things.
We have an obligation to resist the temptation of passivity and despair, while also seeing the scale of the challenge around us clearly.’
10/10 this was awesome. i love ash sarkar, whenever i see her speak she’s just so eloquent and well read and intelligent but also down to earth and funny so i am a bit heart eyes over her already and this book is a perfect credit to her. (to give you a taste of what i mean, not only is this impeccably well sourced to the standards of any serious academic, she keeps it light with a citation of a picture of her cat to prove his cuteness. what’s not to love.)
we NEED people like sarkar on the left. we have to take responsibility for our own infighting and draw attention to the real problem, the REAL minority that rule. the problem is that anyone who really needs to hear the contents of this book almost definitely won’t read it, but if it could be wrangled into the hands of the politically apathetic i think it could do a whole lot of good, and for the choir it preaches to it serves the purpose of arming us with a better understanding of how to elucidate our standpoints as articulately as sarkar does.
some of my favourite bits:
(i would have liked to have included the pages systematically unpicking piers morgan’s duplicitous attention seeking but it’s too long so you have to read the book yourself)
on identity politics:
‘At some point, we’ve got to admit that identity is a worse form of authority than truth. How people feel is important. But it’s not as important as a genocide, ethnic cleansing or ongoing war crimes. It’s not as important as what’s actually happening. The problem for the left is that, by absorbing so much of liberalism’s obsession with subjectivity and the individual, we’ve made it difficult to argue that there’s a hierarchy of harm – and that the material reality outside of our own experience matters more than how we interpret it.’
on ‘the transgender issue’:
‘…’Most of the time, for most people, whether they have a penis determines which spaces they can access.’ But think about it a little more deeply. There are some contexts in which my sexual and reproductive organs really impact how I’m being treated as a cisgender woman. It matters for women who can’t get the right treatment for endometriosis, because doctors are dismissive of their pain. It matters for women and girls who can’t afford period products. It matters for black and Asian women, who are more likely than their white counterparts to be diagnosed with late-stage breast and ovarian cancers. It matters in contexts of sexual violence, strip searches and other forms of physical violation and degradation. But most of the time, people aren’t treating me as a woman because they’ve seen what’s in my jeans. It’s because I outwardly conform to what people think a woman is, through my clothes, build, hair, behaviour and voice. None of these things define a woman. There are cisgender women with short hair, muscular builds, deep voices, butch presentation – you wouldn’t want them kicked out of the loos for failure to conform. In practice, my gender is being reflected back to me by others on the basis of how I present myself, rather than any intimate knowledge of my body (and thank the Lord for that).’
We have an obligation to resist the temptation of passivity and despair, while also seeing the scale of the challenge around us clearly.’
10/10 this was awesome. i love ash sarkar, whenever i see her speak she’s just so eloquent and well read and intelligent but also down to earth and funny so i am a bit heart eyes over her already and this book is a perfect credit to her. (to give you a taste of what i mean, not only is this impeccably well sourced to the standards of any serious academic, she keeps it light with a citation of a picture of her cat to prove his cuteness. what’s not to love.)
we NEED people like sarkar on the left. we have to take responsibility for our own infighting and draw attention to the real problem, the REAL minority that rule. the problem is that anyone who really needs to hear the contents of this book almost definitely won’t read it, but if it could be wrangled into the hands of the politically apathetic i think it could do a whole lot of good, and for the choir it preaches to it serves the purpose of arming us with a better understanding of how to elucidate our standpoints as articulately as sarkar does.
some of my favourite bits:
(i would have liked to have included the pages systematically unpicking piers morgan’s duplicitous attention seeking but it’s too long so you have to read the book yourself)
on identity politics:
‘At some point, we’ve got to admit that identity is a worse form of authority than truth. How people feel is important. But it’s not as important as a genocide, ethnic cleansing or ongoing war crimes. It’s not as important as what’s actually happening. The problem for the left is that, by absorbing so much of liberalism’s obsession with subjectivity and the individual, we’ve made it difficult to argue that there’s a hierarchy of harm – and that the material reality outside of our own experience matters more than how we interpret it.’
on ‘the transgender issue’:
‘…’Most of the time, for most people, whether they have a penis determines which spaces they can access.’ But think about it a little more deeply. There are some contexts in which my sexual and reproductive organs really impact how I’m being treated as a cisgender woman. It matters for women who can’t get the right treatment for endometriosis, because doctors are dismissive of their pain. It matters for women and girls who can’t afford period products. It matters for black and Asian women, who are more likely than their white counterparts to be diagnosed with late-stage breast and ovarian cancers. It matters in contexts of sexual violence, strip searches and other forms of physical violation and degradation. But most of the time, people aren’t treating me as a woman because they’ve seen what’s in my jeans. It’s because I outwardly conform to what people think a woman is, through my clothes, build, hair, behaviour and voice. None of these things define a woman. There are cisgender women with short hair, muscular builds, deep voices, butch presentation – you wouldn’t want them kicked out of the loos for failure to conform. In practice, my gender is being reflected back to me by others on the basis of how I present myself, rather than any intimate knowledge of my body (and thank the Lord for that).’
May 1, 2025
I think Novara is guilty of a lot of the things she criticises in this book re identity politics but thought it was a brilliant critique both of the left and liberalism.
January 19, 2025
Minority Rule dives into how minority elites twist cultural and political stories to keep their grip on power. Sarkar argues that these culture wars are used to stir up fear and division, distracting us from real issues like inequality and corporate control. With sharp analysis and bold commentary, she exposes the tactics used by these elites and challenges the media's common narratives. I have really enjoyed reading Sarkar's thought-provoking insights and timely investigation into power and culture. If you’re keen to understand the deeper forces shaping our society, this really is a must read!
June 7, 2025
A punchy polemic against the state of politics – and the state of the left. Written in the accessible style of a blog-post, the book is really an exercise in raising class consciousness. Sakar argues that the right-wing elite have created paranoid fears of ‘minority rule’ – whether in the form of trans people popping up like ‘dandelions’, or immigrants displacing ‘native’ populations. Such paranoia obscures the very real minority rule we live under in this age of techno-feudalism. Worse still, the left has walked right into this trap, she argues, in adopting an identity politics divorced from its anti-capitalist origins.
Some truly hilarious anecdotes are relayed. In one memorable case, a Labour activist in Liverpool demands all majority-white socialist movements be dismantled. Indeed, the following passage is worth quoting in full (and will be music to the ears of any left-leaning person who has been in university as long as I have):
‘But within left- and liberal-leaning spaces, victimhood – a close friend of lived experience – gives one a perch from which to speak with authority. It's understandable that people want to 'correct' for injustices by giving people from certain communities a boost, a better hearing, a bigger platform. But that well-intentioned effort can result in something that's counter-productive, even corrosive, to the cause of liberation. Instead of fighting to liberate ourselves from harm, we end up attached to the social status that being a victim brings. We maintain a comically low threshold for harm, and a prohibitively high threshold for trust in other people. We turn individuals into standard-bearers for their entire identity community: whatever follows the phrase ‘speaking as a...' is treated as nothing less than the gospel. We isolate ourselves, insisting that other struggles are simply too different to link up with our own. Attention is treated as currency, and a finite one at that. We are not comrades but competitors in a mad scramble for recognition.’
The book is entertaining and makes many of its points well, even if they are a little obvious at times. (If one wanted to be critical, one could observe that many of these points are hardly new: that the capitalist class use the media to scapegoat minorities rather than concede power to workers has long been noted.) However, there is one problem with the book that arguably goes rather deep.
The theoretical motor of the book is a kind of vulgar Marxism. In some ways this is forgivable, because the book is intended for a popular audience, but it arguably allows for a shallow treatment of the central themes. One of the key ideas of early Marxism is that capitalism has an inherent tendency toward the bifurcation of two social groups, the bourgeoise and the proletariat, who must inevitably come into conflict with one another. This simple social stratification is taken up by Sakar in the book, and while it may be true at one level of abstraction to divide people in this way – the level at which she discusses dizzying rates of economic inequality and extreme wealth concentration – it is arguably too simple a view of class at the level at which anybody actually experiences the social world.
The way class struggle has unfolded over the past two hundred years has led to enormous social, cultural, political, and institutional differentiation within the class who sell their labour. So, for example, in Britain today, there are an enormous amount of old people who have pension funds invested in the stock market, living in ex-council houses which accrue in value every year. On a strictly materialistic analysis, they are bourgeois capitalists, yet they may have lived for most of their lives as teachers, plumbers, bricklayers, and so on. They carry not only a memory of being working class, but the identity which goes along with that.
By contrast, the grandchildren of these people may be university educated, working white-collar jobs, but living off wage-labour in insecure housing. In general, then, there has been an extreme complexification of the social structure and the experience of class in advanced capitalist societies. Sakar shows some awareness of this, but it should make any reflective person on the left pause: alliances may be more difficult to construct at the level of social reality than she imagines.
Some truly hilarious anecdotes are relayed. In one memorable case, a Labour activist in Liverpool demands all majority-white socialist movements be dismantled. Indeed, the following passage is worth quoting in full (and will be music to the ears of any left-leaning person who has been in university as long as I have):
‘But within left- and liberal-leaning spaces, victimhood – a close friend of lived experience – gives one a perch from which to speak with authority. It's understandable that people want to 'correct' for injustices by giving people from certain communities a boost, a better hearing, a bigger platform. But that well-intentioned effort can result in something that's counter-productive, even corrosive, to the cause of liberation. Instead of fighting to liberate ourselves from harm, we end up attached to the social status that being a victim brings. We maintain a comically low threshold for harm, and a prohibitively high threshold for trust in other people. We turn individuals into standard-bearers for their entire identity community: whatever follows the phrase ‘speaking as a...' is treated as nothing less than the gospel. We isolate ourselves, insisting that other struggles are simply too different to link up with our own. Attention is treated as currency, and a finite one at that. We are not comrades but competitors in a mad scramble for recognition.’
The book is entertaining and makes many of its points well, even if they are a little obvious at times. (If one wanted to be critical, one could observe that many of these points are hardly new: that the capitalist class use the media to scapegoat minorities rather than concede power to workers has long been noted.) However, there is one problem with the book that arguably goes rather deep.
The theoretical motor of the book is a kind of vulgar Marxism. In some ways this is forgivable, because the book is intended for a popular audience, but it arguably allows for a shallow treatment of the central themes. One of the key ideas of early Marxism is that capitalism has an inherent tendency toward the bifurcation of two social groups, the bourgeoise and the proletariat, who must inevitably come into conflict with one another. This simple social stratification is taken up by Sakar in the book, and while it may be true at one level of abstraction to divide people in this way – the level at which she discusses dizzying rates of economic inequality and extreme wealth concentration – it is arguably too simple a view of class at the level at which anybody actually experiences the social world.
The way class struggle has unfolded over the past two hundred years has led to enormous social, cultural, political, and institutional differentiation within the class who sell their labour. So, for example, in Britain today, there are an enormous amount of old people who have pension funds invested in the stock market, living in ex-council houses which accrue in value every year. On a strictly materialistic analysis, they are bourgeois capitalists, yet they may have lived for most of their lives as teachers, plumbers, bricklayers, and so on. They carry not only a memory of being working class, but the identity which goes along with that.
By contrast, the grandchildren of these people may be university educated, working white-collar jobs, but living off wage-labour in insecure housing. In general, then, there has been an extreme complexification of the social structure and the experience of class in advanced capitalist societies. Sakar shows some awareness of this, but it should make any reflective person on the left pause: alliances may be more difficult to construct at the level of social reality than she imagines.
March 29, 2025
I went into this expecting it to be more controversial — the publicity campaign focused on the notion of identity politics as an unhelpful turn in leftist thinking, to blame for the splintering of former left-wing voter blocks into Tory / Reform / apathy. Before any of us had read the book, this idea prompted some healthy debate and I was excited to get stuck into Ash’s argument. But actually I felt like the meat of this book wasn’t really about identity politics at all (or at least, it felt like a flimsy framework for what she was really talking about).
Most of the book is a (very coherent and persuasive) analysis of how the ruling class of rentier capitalism pit the masses against one another. Aside from a few especially contrary examples in the first chapter, it wasn’t really about the left pushing white working class voters away with their yapping about identity politics, but about the right pulling them in, capitalising on the frustration and disempowerment caused by years of managed decline (thank you Ferg for this helpful push/pull analogy). To which I say: I agree with her analysis wholeheartedly! Almost disappointingly, not controversial at all.
Some other random observations:
- I thought her articulation of the media’s shift from writing about ‘chavs’ to the ‘white working class’ was brilliant.
- I was less convinced by her suggestion that the 2011 riots were an example of multiracial working class solidarity — felt like quite an optimistic reading
Most of the book is a (very coherent and persuasive) analysis of how the ruling class of rentier capitalism pit the masses against one another. Aside from a few especially contrary examples in the first chapter, it wasn’t really about the left pushing white working class voters away with their yapping about identity politics, but about the right pulling them in, capitalising on the frustration and disempowerment caused by years of managed decline (thank you Ferg for this helpful push/pull analogy). To which I say: I agree with her analysis wholeheartedly! Almost disappointingly, not controversial at all.
Some other random observations:
- I thought her articulation of the media’s shift from writing about ‘chavs’ to the ‘white working class’ was brilliant.
- I was less convinced by her suggestion that the 2011 riots were an example of multiracial working class solidarity — felt like quite an optimistic reading
December 3, 2025
This is Ash Sarkar at her best. She uses her own life experiences both as a journalist, political commentator, and left-wing activist to cleverly puncture through the issues that permeate 21st century politics.
It’s a critique of mass produced media in the age of brain rot where conflict generates clicks and good quality journalism continues to decay. It’s a story of how not just privatisation but neoliberal economics has fundamentally altered the way we interact as people. It’s a powerful critique on the left’s own form of hyper individualistic notion of identity that despite its merits failed to grasp the commonality of economic material conditions and allowed further division in the working class whilst it simultaneously enabled the right to weaponise this for their own agenda.
I do wish Sarkar offered a little more solutions in her book, as with many leftist writers, Sarkar is good at pointing the issues and less so at providing active solutions. Beside the base idea of collective action, which while useful, I don’t think would simply solve all the issues she brings up.
Regardless, a very nice and necessary read to understand the modern zeitgeist.
It’s a critique of mass produced media in the age of brain rot where conflict generates clicks and good quality journalism continues to decay. It’s a story of how not just privatisation but neoliberal economics has fundamentally altered the way we interact as people. It’s a powerful critique on the left’s own form of hyper individualistic notion of identity that despite its merits failed to grasp the commonality of economic material conditions and allowed further division in the working class whilst it simultaneously enabled the right to weaponise this for their own agenda.
I do wish Sarkar offered a little more solutions in her book, as with many leftist writers, Sarkar is good at pointing the issues and less so at providing active solutions. Beside the base idea of collective action, which while useful, I don’t think would simply solve all the issues she brings up.
Regardless, a very nice and necessary read to understand the modern zeitgeist.
March 8, 2025
Wowow this book is fantastic. Incredibly clearly argued description of how the leftist movement needs to embrace working together to overcome material inequality, and of how right-wing movements have made use of “identity politics” for their own political gain.
BTW critics that say she’s selling out the left or jumping on the bandwagon of leftist-thinkers-turned-right now that the Zeitgeist is shifting - you clearly have not read the book. You should because you’d probably love it.
My only substantial criticism is I wanted more! Especially in the last chapter - it’s maybe 20 pages about extractivism when it could be an entire book of its own. Anyways this and Doppelganger are now spooning at spot 1 of my favorite nonfiction reads of recent times. That is all thank you.
BTW critics that say she’s selling out the left or jumping on the bandwagon of leftist-thinkers-turned-right now that the Zeitgeist is shifting - you clearly have not read the book. You should because you’d probably love it.
My only substantial criticism is I wanted more! Especially in the last chapter - it’s maybe 20 pages about extractivism when it could be an entire book of its own. Anyways this and Doppelganger are now spooning at spot 1 of my favorite nonfiction reads of recent times. That is all thank you.
March 17, 2025
Ash Sarkar is by far the best of the lot, but my opinion of the Novara crowd has become increasingly (and regrettably) jaundiced - so I was really pleased to enjoy this book more than I expected to.
I appreciated that Sarkar embraced the best bits of books I quite enjoyed but which ultimately just fell short. Like Nesrine Malik’s ‘We Need New Stories’, Sarkar does a great job of studying who confected media storms serve and how they’re instrumentalised in favour of existing power structures - but, whilst engaging to read, that’s not particularly incisive (even James O’Brien has managed to do similar…). Sarkar’s real contribution is strapping this to an overarching analysis which is coherent and compelling (but which remains elegant in its simplicity): the many are united in being the victims of a wealth grab by the few, and therefore have far more in common than that which divides them. In identifying that this thread runs through so many of the ‘culture war’ issues that seemingly divide us (on race, gender, class and more besides), and offering her frame of analysis as a way out, the text creates the space to make novel points; in particular, I found the concept of ‘MP-as-pundit’ to be a really useful means of making sense of the coterie of Reform MPs whose entire model relies on not ever actually having to govern. Whilst Sarkar’s theory at times flirted with being a bit too totalising, the book ultimately always managed to tread the right side of the line - and this therefore felt like exuberance rather than flimsiness. This sets it apart from something like Grace Blakeley’s ‘Vulture Capitalism’ (which slightly crumbles under the weight of its own ambitions), and allows it to offer an Owen Jones-level of rallying cry founded on much more substance than I’d expect from him. That’s in part because she uses the concept of rentier capitalism outlined by the likes of Brett Christophers to anchor her analysis and show how it all ties together. In the end, I thought she did it well.
Added to that - the book is snappily written, and an all-round great read stylistically. Sarkar does a superb job of translating Marxist concepts for everyday audiences, and applying them in ways that feel natural and uncontrived (which surely makes her something of a chimera in Marxist circles). Throughout, ‘Minority Rule’ is consistent in its commitment to class analysis and historical materialism - in circumstances where Sarkar rarely uses the term ‘materialism’ other than to define it (she’s more overt in her references to class, but this is a much more intuitive concept for British audiences). This births some thought provoking discussions. Why do we have a Westminster monoparty? It’s not just because they’re all drawn from the same backgrounds and funded by the same interests - it’s also down to material conditions (and, in particular, the fact that the political space has been narrowed by a media that genuinely is monocultural). Added to that: Sarkar does a superb job of linking her writing to her own personal circumstances where relevant, whilst strictly applying relevance criteria so that this never feels gratuitous, frivolous or self-absorbed. She’s also genuinely reflective regarding her own politics, and willing to consider all sorts of opinions; I found myself really enjoying the surprise interviews with Piers Morgan and Dominic Cummings. To top it off, the book is well-researched and rigorous. The discussion of Gillick competence in relation to transgender healthcare in particular was nuanced and informed, and the only error I spotted was a throwaway comment to Vladimir Lenin having coined the book title ‘What is to be Done?’ (which would have come as a surprise to Nikolai Chernyshevsky - though this is an incredibly minor point).
‘Minority Rule’ has drawn criticism based on the way in which the chapter on identity politics sees Sarkar highlight some really daft (and ultimately unrepresentative) examples as evidence of progressive excess. It’s true that there’s a bit of that - which is a shame. Sarkar argues against the “current political climate”, but in so doing takes the most extreme and noisy examples as its bearers (and it’s notable that a lot of the sillier examples are drawn from America). To some extent, it therefore feels that she’s arguing with a Left that doesn’t exist - and it’s a shame that we don’t hear more about her own experiences during the Corbyn years, which was the only genuine party political project that she has been a part of (the failure of which had very little to do with this type of thing). That being said, anyone who has been at all involved with the Left will understand the point she’s making - and the fact that Sarkar (like any of us) can’t do anything more than throw out evidence that is by its nature anecdotal doesn’t dismiss her point. Ultimately, I think Sarkar is right to conclude that we should do more to think about our oppressions as interconnected and structural - even if just as a practical means of transforming society. I also think that this is quite a specific point made in just one chapter of a much wider book, and that it doesn’t warrant being treated as the text’s core idea (though part of the problem is Sarkar’s fault in that she’s chosen to focus on this in interviews relating to the book - even with publications whose editorial line means that they will not treat the subject in a nuanced manner).
A good read, and I’d recommend it.
I appreciated that Sarkar embraced the best bits of books I quite enjoyed but which ultimately just fell short. Like Nesrine Malik’s ‘We Need New Stories’, Sarkar does a great job of studying who confected media storms serve and how they’re instrumentalised in favour of existing power structures - but, whilst engaging to read, that’s not particularly incisive (even James O’Brien has managed to do similar…). Sarkar’s real contribution is strapping this to an overarching analysis which is coherent and compelling (but which remains elegant in its simplicity): the many are united in being the victims of a wealth grab by the few, and therefore have far more in common than that which divides them. In identifying that this thread runs through so many of the ‘culture war’ issues that seemingly divide us (on race, gender, class and more besides), and offering her frame of analysis as a way out, the text creates the space to make novel points; in particular, I found the concept of ‘MP-as-pundit’ to be a really useful means of making sense of the coterie of Reform MPs whose entire model relies on not ever actually having to govern. Whilst Sarkar’s theory at times flirted with being a bit too totalising, the book ultimately always managed to tread the right side of the line - and this therefore felt like exuberance rather than flimsiness. This sets it apart from something like Grace Blakeley’s ‘Vulture Capitalism’ (which slightly crumbles under the weight of its own ambitions), and allows it to offer an Owen Jones-level of rallying cry founded on much more substance than I’d expect from him. That’s in part because she uses the concept of rentier capitalism outlined by the likes of Brett Christophers to anchor her analysis and show how it all ties together. In the end, I thought she did it well.
Added to that - the book is snappily written, and an all-round great read stylistically. Sarkar does a superb job of translating Marxist concepts for everyday audiences, and applying them in ways that feel natural and uncontrived (which surely makes her something of a chimera in Marxist circles). Throughout, ‘Minority Rule’ is consistent in its commitment to class analysis and historical materialism - in circumstances where Sarkar rarely uses the term ‘materialism’ other than to define it (she’s more overt in her references to class, but this is a much more intuitive concept for British audiences). This births some thought provoking discussions. Why do we have a Westminster monoparty? It’s not just because they’re all drawn from the same backgrounds and funded by the same interests - it’s also down to material conditions (and, in particular, the fact that the political space has been narrowed by a media that genuinely is monocultural). Added to that: Sarkar does a superb job of linking her writing to her own personal circumstances where relevant, whilst strictly applying relevance criteria so that this never feels gratuitous, frivolous or self-absorbed. She’s also genuinely reflective regarding her own politics, and willing to consider all sorts of opinions; I found myself really enjoying the surprise interviews with Piers Morgan and Dominic Cummings. To top it off, the book is well-researched and rigorous. The discussion of Gillick competence in relation to transgender healthcare in particular was nuanced and informed, and the only error I spotted was a throwaway comment to Vladimir Lenin having coined the book title ‘What is to be Done?’ (which would have come as a surprise to Nikolai Chernyshevsky - though this is an incredibly minor point).
‘Minority Rule’ has drawn criticism based on the way in which the chapter on identity politics sees Sarkar highlight some really daft (and ultimately unrepresentative) examples as evidence of progressive excess. It’s true that there’s a bit of that - which is a shame. Sarkar argues against the “current political climate”, but in so doing takes the most extreme and noisy examples as its bearers (and it’s notable that a lot of the sillier examples are drawn from America). To some extent, it therefore feels that she’s arguing with a Left that doesn’t exist - and it’s a shame that we don’t hear more about her own experiences during the Corbyn years, which was the only genuine party political project that she has been a part of (the failure of which had very little to do with this type of thing). That being said, anyone who has been at all involved with the Left will understand the point she’s making - and the fact that Sarkar (like any of us) can’t do anything more than throw out evidence that is by its nature anecdotal doesn’t dismiss her point. Ultimately, I think Sarkar is right to conclude that we should do more to think about our oppressions as interconnected and structural - even if just as a practical means of transforming society. I also think that this is quite a specific point made in just one chapter of a much wider book, and that it doesn’t warrant being treated as the text’s core idea (though part of the problem is Sarkar’s fault in that she’s chosen to focus on this in interviews relating to the book - even with publications whose editorial line means that they will not treat the subject in a nuanced manner).
A good read, and I’d recommend it.
June 11, 2025
i recommend !!
October 5, 2025
When your favourite political commentator brings out a book, it’s got to be 5 stars😍.
Her central argument is that identity politics is a distraction from class consciousness. The book is well researched and well written- Ash does a great job of writing accessibly about complex economic & political concepts.
I sometimes felt there were 3 arguments straining against each other rather than held together- rise of identity politics, role of the media in politics, rentier capitalism. I would have liked a stronger conclusion to re-emphasise the linking argument.
Her central argument is that identity politics is a distraction from class consciousness. The book is well researched and well written- Ash does a great job of writing accessibly about complex economic & political concepts.
I sometimes felt there were 3 arguments straining against each other rather than held together- rise of identity politics, role of the media in politics, rentier capitalism. I would have liked a stronger conclusion to re-emphasise the linking argument.
April 20, 2025
4.5 Stars - just solid opinions reinforcing lots of points I agree with. Well written and very readable for non fiction.
November 12, 2025
Very enjoyable critique of contemporary politics
October 18, 2025
i love ash sarkar's ideas and the way she puts them when I watch her interviews, however, sometimes it's a bit difficult to follow her argumentation in written form but it's a pretty good book, loved the journalist lobbying part especially.
May 14, 2025
unsure about this one because my initial rating was 4 stars but finding out about the 'woke is dead' promotion of this book has kind of soured my opinion. is that right? should i change the rating of a book that i rated 4 stars based purely on the book itself, because i think the way it's been promoted is bad? i don't know so i'll probably change it a few more times. the promotion was just so far removed from the content of the book... what's the point of pandering to right-wingers in your advertising when they will literally hate the book???? i'm confused. anyway, woke is not dead!!
March 21, 2025
Time for the left to bring back the politics of class and place it front and centre
Displaying 1 - 30 of 233 reviews