
Coming Clean: The Rise of Critical Theory and the Future of the Left - but which left?
Coming Clean: The Rise of Critical Theory and the Future of the Left
Author
:
Eric Heinze
ISBN-13
:
978-0262049580
Publisher
:
MIT Press
Guideline Price
:
£26
Only a few months ago, the idea of Conor McGregor lecturing the world about immigration from the White House on St Patrick's Day would have seemed like a poor Saturday Night Live sketch. But in 2025, all bets are off.
The richest man in the world was appointed to a central position in the US cabinet. His online platform has with his approval become a fascist cesspit. There is global revulsion at the ongoing genocide in Gaza, but protest about it seems completely impotent. Donald Trump's plan for 'peace' in Ukraine involves forcing that country to settle on the invader's terms. It is a grim time.
During the 1990s one Irish far-left party's recruitment schtick was to claim that 'there has never been a better time to be a socialist'. Only the completely delusional would suggest this now. So what has gone wrong?
Eric Heinze, a professor of law at London's Queen Mary University, gets off to a promising start, noting how the US right has adeptly used 'culture war' issues around race and gender to gain support. Indeed, as far back as 2020, Steve Bannon confidently predicted, 'this is how we are going to win'. The contrived nature of much of these controversies is illustrated by the fact that before January 2020, Fox News had mentioned
critical race theory
a total of three times; during June 2021 alone, it was referenced 900 times.
READ MORE
But these issues are not the focus of Heinze's book. He is, he claims, 'not anti-woke. I am pro-woke but pro a very different kind of woke'. Instead, Heinze suggests that the left will not prosper until it faces up to its past. He claims that the left 'rightly demand we must come clean about western violence at home and abroad'. But, he asserts, 'the left pushes the widest possible public education about western wrongdoing, yet engages in no public education about leftist wrongdoing.'
He suggests that if 'the left is to maintain any integrity in our public conversations, it must start to do what it has taught the rest of us to do … when leftists fail to take charge of their own histories, the right inevitably sweeps in to do it for them, often in mischievous ways.'
The problem is that Heinze appears unclear as to what 'left' he is addressing. Most of his arguments are about critical theory and those who adhere to it, whom he terms 'crits'. But his primary examples range from Noam Chomsky on Ukraine, the oppression of LGBTQ+ people in Castro's Cuba, the controversies about anti-Semitism in Corbyn's Labour Party and the rhetoric of French left-wing leader Jean Luc Mélenchon.
It is not that Heinze doesn't make salient points sometimes, but that he appears unaware that others have said it all before and often more convincingly than he does. Heinze, for instance, doesn't mention Kenan Malik's study of the limitations of identity politics and their impact on the left, nor important work on anti-Semitism by Rachel Shabi and David Renton.
And while Heinze lists 'classism' as one of the oppressions opposed by the left, he appears to have little understanding of class. Historically, socialists put the working class at the centre of their politics, not because it always contained the most oppressed, but because they possessed the ability as a class to emancipate themselves. Heinze doesn't believe that, obviously, which is not a problem, but neither does he address class in any real way. If he did so, he would find that the absence of class analysis explains many of what he identifies as the left's hypocrisies and blind spots.
The majority of the left no longer believe in the centrality of class either, which in part explains why some of them end up in thrall to despots and others follow the latest academic fashion in search of a quick-fix route to success. And, indeed, the left often says or does stupid things. (A good rule of thumb here is that if you don't want to be criticised for doing these things, then don't do them.)
But ultimately, we are very often talking about people with relatively little power. Corbynism was a failure, but Keir Starmer's administration delights in policies which inflict pain on those least able to cope while reacting to suggestions about taxing the super-rich with horror.
Heinze is right to ask questions about the left's future. It may not have one. The global right has built a movement on what Keith Kahn-Harris describes as 'self-interest, cynicism, delusion, lies and hate'.' The left can't, for a variety of reasons, emulate that. It needs an honest discussion about what it can do, but this book will only be of limited use to that process.
Brian Hanley is Assistant Professor in the History of Northern Ireland at Trinity College Dublin
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
US strikes set back Iran nuclear programme by months
US airstrikes did not destroy Iran's nuclear capability and only set it back by a few months, according to one initial US intelligence assessment, as a shaky ceasefire brokered by President Donald Trump took hold between Iran and Israel. The preliminary assessment by the US Defense Intelligence Agency was disclosed to Reuters by three sources familiar with the matter. One of the sources said Iran's enriched uranium stocks had not been eliminated, and in fact, the country's nuclear program may have been set back only a month or two. The assessment contradicted Mr Trump's assertion that the weekend strikes had succeeded in destroying Tehran's nuclear program and raised questions about further US military action if indeed the program survived the intense aerial bombardment. The White House said the intelligence report was "flat out wrong." Mr Trump's administration told the UN Security Council that its weekend strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities had "degraded" Iran's nuclear program, short of Mr Trump's earlier assertion that the facilities had been "obliterated". Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel in its 12 days of war with Iran had removed the threat of nuclear annihilation and was determined to thwart any attempt by Tehran to revive its programme. "We have removed two immediate existential threats to us - the threat of nuclear annihilation and the threat of annihilation by 20,000 ballistic missiles," he said in video remarks issued by his office. Israel launched the surprise air war on 13 June, hitting Iranian nuclear sites where it said Iran was trying to develop an atomic bomb and killing top military commanders in the worst blow to the Islamic Republic since the 1980s war with Iraq. Iran, which says its uranium enrichment programme is for peaceful purposes and denies trying to build nuclear weapons, retaliated with a series of missile barrages on Israeli cities. Earlier today, both Iran and Israel signalled that the air war between the two nations had concluded, at least for now, after Mr Trump scolded them for violating a ceasefire he announced. Iranian preisdent hails 'great victory' Israel's military lifted restrictions on activity across the country at 8pm local time (6pm Irish time), and officials said Ben Gurion Airport, the country's main airport near Tel Aviv, had reopened. Iran's airspace likewise will be reopened, state-affiliated Nour news reported. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country had successfully ended the war in what he called a "great victory," according to Iranian media. Mr Pezeshkian also told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that Tehran was ready to resolve differences with the United States, according to official news agency IRNA. A senior White House official said Mr Trump brokered the ceasefire deal with Mr Netanyahu, and other administration officials were in touch with the Iranians. Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani secured Tehran's agreement during a call with Iranian officials, an official briefed on the negotiations said. Both Israel and Iran took hours to acknowledge they had accepted the ceasefire and accused each other of violating it, underscoring the fragility of the truce between the two bitter foes and the challenge of achieving lasting peace between them. Mr Trump scolded both sides but aimed especially stinging criticism at Israel, telling the close US ally to "calm down now." He later said Israel called off further attacks at his command. Israel's defence minister, Israel Katz, said he told his US counterpart, Pete Hegseth, that his country would respect the ceasefire unless Iran violated it. Mr Pezeshkian likewise said Iran would honour the ceasefire as long as Israel did, according to Iranian media. Whether the Israel-Iran truce can hold is a major question given the deep mistrust between the two nations. But Mr Trump's ability to broker a ceasefire showed Washington retains some leverage in the volatile region. Israeli Armed Forces Chief of staff Eyal Zamir said a "significant chapter" of the conflict had concluded but the campaign against Iran was not over. He said the military would refocus on its war against Iran-backed Hamas militants in Gaza. Iran's military command also warned Israel and the United States to learn from the "crushing blows" it delivered during the conflict. Iranian authorities said 610 people were killed in their country by Israeli strikes and 4,746 injured. Iran's retaliatory bombardment killed 28 people in Israel, the first time its air defences were penetrated by large numbers of Iranian missiles. Oil prices plunged, and stock markets rallied worldwide in a sign of confidence inspired by the ceasefire, which allayed fears of disruption to critical oil supplies from the Gulf. Ceasefire violations? Earlier in the day, Mr Trump admonished Israel with an obscenity in an extraordinary outburst at an ally whose air war he had joined two days before by dropping massive bunker-buster bombs on Iran's underground nuclear sites. Before departing the White House en route to a NATO summit in Europe, Mr Trump told reporters he was unhappy with both sides for the ceasefire breach but particularly frustrated with Israel, which he said had "unloaded" shortly after agreeing to the deal. "I've got to get Israel to calm down now," Mr Trump said. Iran and Israel had been fighting "so long and so hard that they don't know what the f**k they're doing." Mr Netanyahu's office acknowledged Israel bombed a radar site near Tehran in what it said was retaliation for Iranian missiles fired three-and-a-half hours after the ceasefire was due to begin. It did not explicitly say whether the strike on the radar site took place before or after they spoke. The Islamic Republic denied launching any missiles and said Israel's attacks had continued for an hour-and-a-half beyond the time the truce was meant to start. In both countries, there was a palpable sense of relief. "Who mediated or how it happened doesn't matter. The war is over. It never should have started in the first place," said Reza Sharifi, 38, heading back to Tehran from Rasht on the Caspian Sea, where he had fled with his family.


Irish Examiner
2 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Pentagon report says US strikes on Iran nuclear sites only set back programme months
A new US intelligence report found that Iran's nuclear programme has been set back only a few months after a US strike, and was not 'completely and fully obliterated' as President Donald Trump has said. The early intelligence report issued by the Defence Intelligence Agency on Monday contradicts statements from Mr Trump and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the status of Iran's nuclear facilities. According to people familiar with the situation, the report found that while the Saturday strikes at the Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites did significant damage, they were not totally destroyed. The White House strongly pushed back on the assessment, calling it 'flat-out wrong'. 'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear programme,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. 'Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.' The CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment on the DIA assessment. ODNI coordinates the work of the nation's 18 intelligence agencies, including the DIA, which is the intelligence arm of the Defence Department, responsible for producing intelligence on foreign militaries and the capabilities of adversaries. The intelligence assessment was first reported by CNN on Tuesday. Read More Trump claims Israel-Iran ceasefire he brokered is 'in effect' despite initial violations


Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on Iran and Israel: a fragile ceasefire
Donald Trump's desperate calls yesterday to both Israel and Iran not to break the ceasefire he and the Qataris brokered were testimony both to the deal's fragility and to the difficulty he has in restraining Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu. 'ISRAEL. DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS,' the US president wrote on his social platform, emphasising his anger with Israel in particular. He warned Israel that doing so would be a major violation of the ceasefire and called on it to bring its pilots home. And it did so, after a token hit on a radar station. While not sparing Tehran from criticism, Trump appeared to recognise that Iranian restraint after the US strike on its nuclear facilities – demonstrated in its half-hearted, well-flagged attack on the Doha US Al Udeid base – had signalled a genuine openness to de-escalate. Within hours the precarious ceasefire was agreed and much of the surprised world breathed a sigh of relief. There followed uncertainty on whether it was holding, with Trump intervening again. READ MORE That both Israel and Iran would portray the agreement to conclude what Trump calling the 'Twelve-day War' as a victory was unsurprising. The claim by Tehran, stripped of its nuclear programme and much of its missile capability, its air defences completely exposed, was a bit of a stretch. While Netanyahu claims that Israel has achieved 'all of the objectives' of its military offensive, his determination on regime change has been thwarted, at least for now. For the Israeli prime minister even a job half-done represents an important political victory. He has succeeded in his long-cherished ambition to get the US to support his personal imperative to break Iran's nuclear programme. And he has probably extended significantly his fragile coalition's life by neutralising an important section of his domestic opposition. Western leaders in Brussels have trodden warily in responding to the attack on Iran, determined not to antagonise, speaking in one voice just of the need for 'de-escalation'. The Nato leaders will know that an end to fighting between Iran and Israel and fatal damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities would be a win for the US president . But we simply do not yet know whether either of these goals have been achieved. And it remains clear that Trump's attack on Iran was a huge gamble and obviously in breach of international law. For the US president , claiming that he has ended the war is clearly a good soundbite. And a fragile ceasefire is in place. But the enmity between Israel and Iran runs deep and the destruction of Gaza continues. Today, Trump claims a victory. Tomorrow, who knows?