The People Are Not One

by Daniel Tutt, C Derick Varn

In The People Are Not One, Daniel Tutt and C. Derick Varn dismantle the central illusion of contemporary left politics: that “the people” can serve as a coherent subject of emancipation. Against both right and left populisms, they argue that this fantasy of unity obscures real class antagonisms and traps socialism in a dead-end politics of moral appeal and electoral maneuver.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction

82 pages, Paperback

Published June 26, 2026

Reviews

[Klejton]

Decent analysis but as I have come to expect, there are no organisational solutions whatsoever. His alternative to left wing populism is “let’s just to like the merger thesis somehow”

Also there is no discussion of different types of populism. The populism of Hugo Chavez was not the same as the populism of Bernie Sanders not least in their respective relations to imperialism. There is also no discussion of how the working class has been shaped in a global level. The author makes absolute statements like “The working class has been atomised because of deindustrialization and neoliberalism” but obviously this hasn’t happened everywhere. It has mainly affected global north countries. In fact, some countries in the global south have been proletarianised if anything, with a larger share of their population being absorbed in wage work as manufacturing was brought there. There are so many of these books that discuss capitalism as though it is a closed system between Europe and America. No other place matters and an analysis in a global level is not even entertained.

[Reid tries to read]

Initial thoughts were that this is good but disappointing. I consider Varn to be one of the smartest American left wing intellectuals with an encyclopedia of knowledge, and Tutt is great as well. However, I have the same issue with this as everyone else: it’s too short and leaves a lot of meat on the bones of just about every area it touches upon. It’s not shallow, per say, but it under-explains a lot of its references/concepts (for example, Hall’s idea of “authoritarian populism” barely gets a definition yet is referenced throughout the entirety of the pamphlet). Wish it was about 3x longer, but as of right now Wood’s book about Eurocommunism is a better dissection of the issues with populism, despite its age.

[Dan]

I really wanted to rate this higher because it provides an exceptionally strong critique of the ways modern left wing organizing constantly devolves into liberalism. It's especially a breath of fresh air to see these critiques firmly rooted in a structural materialist analysis rather than simply hurling condemnations at specific individuals or groups, rather looking past that to recognize *why* these wrong paths tend to be taken. The critique of Laclau and Mouffe is something way more American leftists need to understand.

However, there are times where "leaves you wanting more" is a bad thing, and this is one of them. Considering the depth and breadth of the works cited here and how that reflects the deep study and rigor of the authors, it's a bit baffling how it just trails off at the end. Certainly it's a perpetual challenge to combine sharp critical analysis with specific political prescriptions, but leaving the latter so underdeveloped ends up weakening the impact of the critique, no matter how strong.

While the authors admit the blind spot around social reproduction, there are many others as well including a common lack of recognition of the role of violence from the repressive state apparatus in shaping the boundaries of what the working class perceives as possible outside fleeting moments of rupture, as well as little to no engagement with the differences of class struggle in the global South. Neoliberalism's global reach may have a homogenizing impact, but just as the turn to globalization shaped class attitudes and fragmentation in the imperial core, it has had specific determinant effects in periphery countries as well. These forces share an interplay in a global capital market, and at least gesturing towards that is necessary if we are trying to really build a holistic understanding of class relations.

I still strongly recommend this, if only to encourage folks to dive into the bibliography, but I really wish this was much longer and went into more depth on the authors' thoughts on the path forward.

[Sholto Marti]

Could've been an article

[Charles McBride]

Good bones… supposes a lot of background knowledge from the reader and is confused about whether it would rather be a pamphlet or a book. Would have massively improved if it was twice as long with the same amount of topics covered

[virgilisdead]

Une critique brève du populisme de gauche, à un moment où celui-ci connaît un certain dynamisme aux Etats-Unis du fait de diverses victoires électorales.

Elle se fait avec un angle marxiste et révolutionnaire, en l'ancrant dans l'histoire américaine pour montrer les origines politiques et intellectuelles du populisme tel qu'il s'y est incarné à différentes reprises, notamment à la fin du XIXème et au début du XXème siècle, déjà en opposition au socialisme.

Elle sert d'avertissement pour une partie de la gauche américaine face aux potentielles défaites à venir, tout en identifiant les obstacles à abattre pour celle-ci : les liens structurels avec des institutions bourgeoises comme le parti Démocrate, le sectarisme de l'extrême-gauche post-Occupy, les difficultés à construire des solidarités internationales ou des structures culturelles et politiques autonomes pour le prolétariat.

Pour écouter relativement souvent les deux auteurs dans divers podcasts de gauchistes, je comprends bien la nécessité de ré-affirmer nombre d'arguments dans les débats internes à la gauche et ses fractions révolutionnaires, notamment au sein des Democratic Socialists of America. Même si je connais ces arguments (la nécessité d'une lecture de classe, le refus de l'interclassisme, etc.), du fait du contexte français où le populisme de gauche à le vent en poupe depuis plusieurs années, j'ai apprécié la spécificité de cette critique avec son angle américain, et pu y identifier pas mal de références intéressantes à explorer.

"The People are Not One" est toutefois très court, et beaucoup de l'argumentation me paraît manquer de développements qui me semblent nécessaires, et passe donc assez vite sur pas mal de points. L'orientation stratégique, essentiellement par la reconstruction du lien entre mouvement ouvrier et mouvement socialiste / communiste telle qu'énoncée auparavant par Kautsky, est assez claire mais mériterait d'avantage d'être présentée par des éléments plus concrets. Mais un ouvrage trop long aurait certainement perdu en efficacité pamphlétaire, désireuse de lancer des discussions au sein des diverses organisations concernées... Les problématiques de genre et de race sont aussi à peine esquisées, même si elles ne sont pas ignorées et que les deux auteurs, dans d'autres de leurs interventions, abordent ces questions.

Bref, j'en ressors avec d'autres pistes de lecture à explorer, un accord plutôt global sur les constats, et quelques doutes sur ce qu'il est effectivement proposé de faire... En bonne ultra-gauchiste, je n'attends aussi qu'un dialogue avec les réflexions esquissées par Phil Neel dans "Théorie du Parti", et même plus généralement dans Hellworld quand à la question de la fragmentation mondiale du prolétariat et ses conséquences politiques.

[Sylvia]

Some interesting thoughts in this and at times, some of the conceptualisations of (left) populism are useful. But I do think having a bit of a background in either Partyism and/or Marxist philosophy (esp. Laclau and Marcuse) is needed here.

I think the book touches on some of the issues of socialist strategy (in the USA), including the dominance of a liberal identity surrounded by nebulous, atomised notions of freedom amongst people today. There are also some explorations of contemporary studies on the current formation of the working class in the USA which I also found useful.

But again, I think for such a short book that I had to really sit and read this because of the more philosophical leanings. At times it can be a bit of a hard read (esp. if you are not prepared), but it could also be how chapters end somewhat abruptly and that some key arguments mentioned at the start ('complexities of building an internationalist, anti-imperialist movement') are not touched upon as much as I would have thought.

Chapter 8 (The Populist Drift and the Lopsided Merger Thesis) was probably the one I was most engaged with. It is interesting to consider approaches to communisation as strategic orientation within spontaneous social movements and in turn, developing less a total reaction against programmatic politics, but a 'partial reconfiguration', according to the authors.

Overall, I think people with more knowledge on these topics have more to say. I think for me, some of this was useful and interesting. Although I think some areas could have been developed more, including the ending where I feel like the authors suggestions are essentially rank-and-file strategy work in trade unions, socialists better articulating anti-oppression back into Marxian concepts of exploitation and some independent working class cultural (and political) centres. It's a bit vague and muddled, which can be a problem when articulating programmatic (adjacent?) politics, that it can read as a bit speculative in terms of how we actually do it.

[Travis Weaver]

This pamphlet has two aims, provide a critique of the populist left and reconstituting the working class along Marxist lines. Among its 70 pages some chapters provide a wondering unfocused analysis while others provide a quick history of intellectual thought that at best does a good job of criticizing the populist left while not creating a clear path to its second goal. Instead, it points to plenty of further reading. I’m not disappointed that I read it as I appreciate the broad overview and the suggestions of future readings but Tutt and Varn have been pretty vocal of the superiority of their position while failing to provide an actual Marxist vision of where we can go from here.

[Ann Larson]

A really interesting intervention in the debate about whether left populism constitutes a durable program of social change.

[Lookout]

I agree with much of the critique of both traditional Marxism and populism. I will say this I will concede that this is devasting critique of both these two traditions I won't be defending either. However this is not a good defense that Marxism of the capable emancipating the working class. I say this because I really struggle with Marx concepts.

Is Marxism obselete in todays world? I ask this because I don't if Marxism applicable.in todays world. Marxism is incredible vague and even if you find the most compatible definition with Marxs method it is unclear how it can applicable. The Authors of this pamphlet Tutt and Varn do acknowledge Socialist Party America had issues with recruiting workers because of one of the SPAs plank was abolish wage labor. It leads to think how am I going to compensated for my time to do things I don't want do. It denies freedom a wage provides. I can choose to spend however I want and also I get command others peoples labor. that's a decent freedom in my book. Abolition of wage labor is very big obstacle to overcome. The authors are aware of this problem and have pointed it out and advocated that there needs to be something to replace wages with. This is not to criticize them but it is to criticize a tradition that want to defend. Marx is notorious for being vague as difficult to read even for his contemporaries and those who agree with him find his ideas unhelpful. Abolishing the wage relationship is not the only Marx has but also abolishing private property , capital, state, markets and borders all run into the same question what is it going to replace it with. These limitations hurt Marxism. Tutt and Varn are aware of it and want to change. This blind spot in Marxism and by default populist and new deal policy look preferable in a world with terrible options. Again they know this but I want this is a bigger issue than they realize..