Why Competing Solidarities Tend to Win

The Marxist tradition has an unresolved problem. Workers share an objective interest in the abolition of class domination - in ending the system that subordinates their lives to the interests of a ruling class. Yet that shared position rarely produces durable unity. Instead, workers persistently identify with their sector, their nation, their ethnic group, their religious community. The history of class struggle is littered with moments where solidarity built along class lines was defeated - not only by repression, though repression clears the field, but because other forms of belonging addressed more of what workers actually needed.

The standard explanations - false consciousness, ideological hegemony, the labor aristocracy - each identify something real but share a tendency to treat the phenomenon as a deviation from the true class interest. The competing interests are not false. They are real, immediate, and often more tangible than the abstract promise of class-wide emancipation. The steelworker who identifies with her sector does so partly because the sector provides her livelihood, her bargaining position, her concrete daily social world. The worker who identifies nationally does so partly because the nation-state provides real protections, real infrastructure, real welfare and direct financial benefits — and enforces the law selectively in favor of those who belong. Moreover, individual workers personally derive use values from class relations — from credential-based status, from the capacity to direct others' labor in the workplace, from gendered authority within the household and parental authority over children, from access to social spaces that exclude those deemed inferior. Workers are not merely deceived into supporting class rule; they are bound to it by material and social advantages that a purely economic analysis of exploitation cannot capture. That this is how class rule perpetuates itself should be obvious. The question is why the Marxist tradition has not taken it more seriously.

This essay argues that the persistence of what I will call competing solidarities — nationalism, sectoralism, religious communalism, tribal and ethnic identification, and related forms of belonging — points to a structural gap in Marxist theory. Each embodies a specific vision of economic development and social reproduction: nationalism organizes production, trade and welfare along territorial lines; sectoralism organizes bargaining power and labor markets along craft or industry lines; religious and ethnic communities often maintain their own networks of mutual aid, education, and care — networks whose organizational infrastructure also enforces communal boundaries and, as the case studies will show, periodically mobilizes pogroms. They are material forms of social organization that compete for the actual organization of people's economic and reproductive lives.

The term requires immediate clarification because it will do substantial work throughout the essay. Competing solidarities are not the opposite of class solidarity — they are formations on a contested field. They compete not only with class solidarity but with each other: caste solidarity competes with Hindu solidarity (the Mandal/Mandir dynamic this essay will discuss), confessional parties compete for the same populations within the same state (the Lebanese case), nationalist movements absorb or destroy rival formations (the AKP's elimination of the Gülen movement), and historically, liberal-national solidarity displaced feudal-estate solidarity without either being a class solidarity. Class solidarity is one contestant on this field, not the natural default from which other solidarities deviate. The Marxist tradition has treated it as the default — and the persistent failure to achieve it as requiring special explanation. This essay argues the reverse: the field is inherently contested, multiple solidarities compete simultaneously, and the question is not why class solidarity fails to emerge as the natural outcome of class position but what conditions determine which solidarities outcompete which others.

The gap in Marxist theory is not that it "ignores culture" or "reduces everything to economics." It is that the tradition has insufficiently theorized the multidimensionality of social reproduction, and has as a result underestimated the material basis on which all competing solidarities — including class solidarity — must operate. Part of the problem is that the tradition has failed to modernize its grasp of what biology, anthropology, and the comparative study of social species have established about what kind of beings humans actually are. The argument, in brief: classed societies appropriate and rigidify the dimensions of social existence, locking them into separate institutional domains under class-structured control, removing collective governance over how those dimensions are organized. Competing solidarities operate on this terrain by offering institutional architectures that address multiple dimensions simultaneously — and the provision is genuinely experienced, not cynical or merely instrumental, which is precisely what makes it effective. But the governance serves class reproduction rather than the governed: the base's experience is real; the structural function operates at a level the base does not encounter in the dimensions it participates for. The right-wing formations that currently dominate the field outcompete class solidarity not because they address more dimensions (though they do) but because the reproduction conditions are structurally asymmetric: the right's institutional infrastructure is tolerated or actively subsidized by the state, its education pipelines and media ecosystems reproduce the movement generationally, and its spatial anchoring in churches, mosques, and temples survives because it is system-serving — while class solidarity as typically constructed addresses fewer dimensions, operates under permanent state threat, and lacks the material, legal, educational, and communicative infrastructure through which persistence is maintained. The left's task is to build competing solidarities of comparable dimensional breadth under collective governance — which is what the left cases in this essay attempted, and what their failures and partial successes reveal about the conditions for success.

This essay works with a broader definition of class relations than the Marxist tradition typically employs. A companion essay develops the argument in detail, but the core is straightforward: class relations are those in which a dominant party gets others to do work for them on an ongoing basis without having to meaningfully reciprocate, backed by institutional power the subordinate party cannot easily escape.^[1] This is older and broader than wage exploitation, and it does not operate in a single mode. Tributary, slave-holding, and feudal societies all enabled exploitation and all produced competing solidarities: religion, tribe, guild, city, caste. And just as capitalist relations grew within a feudal context, non-capitalist relations of exploitation do not simply precede capitalism in a neat sequence; they coexist alongside it and arguably thrive. Patriarchal household authority, credential-based gatekeeping, racialized forced labor, debt servitude — these are not remnants of earlier stages but active forms of class rule operating alongside and through surplus extraction and wage exploitation. Capitalist relations are the most flexible and adaptive form in which class logic has operated to date, but they are a form, not the logic itself. An analysis that frames the problem as exclusively capitalist will miss both the depth of the problem and the non-commodified modes of exploitation that capitalism relies on but did not invent.

The essay proceeds in two parts. The first develops the analytical apparatus: the foundation from biology, anthropology, and comparative behavioral research, the materialist account of what class does to social life, the needs-dimension framework, and six tools for reading competing solidarities (organizing dimension, aspirational dimension, governance form, sub-organizational architecture, reproduction conditions, terms of belonging). The second applies this apparatus to ten cases — four right-wing movements that are currently winning the competition and six left experiments that attempted dimensional breadth under collective governance — and draws out the structural trade-offs, asymmetries, and conditions any left alternative would have to navigate.

The usual diagnosis - and where it falls short

The Marxist tradition offers four main explanations for the persistence of competing solidarities. None is without merit, but none explains why the phenomenon is so structurally robust.

The first is the theory of false consciousness, most associated with Lukács. Workers internalize the worldview of the ruling class; nationalism, sectoralism and similar forms of identification are manifestations of that internalization. In its crude form, the difficulty is straightforward: if the content of hegemonic ideology were arbitrary - simply whatever the ruling class happened to promote - then one would expect competing solidarities to vary randomly in their effectiveness. They do not. Nationalisms - which have themselves changed substantially over time, from romantic ethnic nationalism through liberal civic nationalism to contemporary authoritarian variants - have proven extraordinarily resilient across wildly different economic and political contexts, from 19th-century European industrialization to 21st-century deindustrialization, from colonial independence movements to settler-colonial states. Religious narratives that legitimize domination as divinely ordained have shown comparable persistence, from Vedic varna ideology to contemporary political theology. This consistency suggests that these forms of solidarity are tapping into something more fundamental than the specific ideological content of any given ruling class project.

The second is Lenin's theory of the labor aristocracy: super-profits extracted through imperialism are partially channelled to a privileged stratum of the working class in the imperial core, materially binding them to the fortunes of their own ruling class. This correctly identifies a real mechanism. The strongest version of the argument goes further: the material privilege does not merely coexist with national identification but is organized and delivered through national institutions - welfare states, citizenship-based rights, national labor markets, tariff protections - so that national belonging becomes the institutional form in which workers experience their advantage. On this reading, workers in the imperial core identify nationally not despite their class interests but because the nation-state is the vehicle through which those interests are concretely served. But even this stronger version does not fully resolve the puzzle. Workers in countries without significant imperial privilege also identify nationally; workers in industries without particular material advantages also identify sectorally. The material incentive reinforces the identification, and in some cases may be sufficient to sustain it - but the pattern's universality suggests something more is at work than the distribution of super-profits.^[2]

The third explanation is Gramsci's analysis of the three moments of consciousness in the Prison Notebooks. In the first (the "economic-corporative" moment) people identify with the immediate group that shares their specific economic position: their trade, their sector, their profession. The solidarity is real and often intense, but bounded by the group's particular position in the division of labor; and it is more than economic calculation, because the trade or sector also provides shared routines, shared risks, shared knowledge, a sense of who "we" are and what "we" do, becoming a source of identity, recognition, and belonging in its own right. In the second moment, class solidarity proper, this narrow identification broadens, requiring an act of abstraction across concrete differences in working life to a common structural position. In the third, the "hegemonic" moment, the class develops the capacity to present its interests as society's, offering moral and intellectual leadership that transcends its own economic position. Italian fascism made the corporative moment into an explicit state program through the corporazioni, organizing workers and employers by sector into state-supervised bodies that offered protection, identity, and participation as a package tied to the sector rather than the class. The pattern is broader: feudal guilds, religious communities, tribal affiliations, and nationalisms all function on the same structural logic, offering solidarity within a bounded group at the expense of solidarity across groups. Fascism makes explicit what other classed societies achieve through more diffuse means.

What this framework does not work out is why the corporative moment is so persistent. Its roots are placed in the division of labor, civil society institutions, and forms of common sense, so the grounding is materially serious. The pedagogical answer (organic intellectuals emerging from within the class to develop a new common sense) sketches how the transition might be attempted, but operates at the level of how workers come to understand their position, not at the level of what makes the corporative moment more attractive than class solidarity in the first place — what it provides, as a form of social life, that class solidarity as typically constructed does not.

A fourth strand cuts where these three blur: workers across national boundaries share a class position but not a community of life. The distinction between a similarity of fate (the same structural location under capitalism) and a community of fate (the dense bonds of language, shared institutions, common media, and spatial proximity that constitute a felt "we") was named by the Austro-Marxists, most fully in Bauer's Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy (1907).^[3] The nation is a "community of character" produced by shared material conditions, interaction, and cultural transmission across generations, not a fixed entity or an ideological mystification. Class solidarity requires an act of abstraction across thin bonds; national solidarity is constantly reproduced through thick ones. The bonds are not imposed from above: capitalism itself draws previously excluded classes into the national community of culture through mass education, military conscription, the press, and the workers' movement, so that national identification becomes a consequence of how social life is actually organized. This locates nationalism as the form of life through which workers live their structural position rather than as a deviation from it, but the limitation is shared with the other treatments. The framework explains how nations form and why workers identify with them, not what national belonging provides. The Austro-Marxist resolution (socialism will absorb all members into "a unified community of education, work, and culture") repeats the productivist assumption that transforming the mode of production is sufficient, when the persistence of national identification may depend on needs (belonging, recognition, order, mourning) that a change in production relations would not automatically address.

The common limitation across these explanations is the one each runs into in turn: none asks what competing solidarities provide as forms of social life, what needs they actually meet, and what dimensions they address that class solidarity as typically constructed does not. The expected resolution differs (ideological correction, material restructuring, pedagogical transformation, productivist absorption) but the question is the same one displaced. Feminist social reproduction theory, from Vogel through Federici and Bhattacharya, pushes further by insisting that the reproduction of labor-power involves the full range of care, socialization, and embodied maintenance that keeps human beings functioning, and that the tradition's neglect of this domain has strategic as well as theoretical consequences. But even this work has not pursued the question to its biological and anthropological foundations: what the species actually requires for social functioning, and what that implies for the conditions under which durable solidarity can exist.

The common escape route - and why it is a dead end

The Marxist tradition genuinely has very little to say about motivation, attachment, meaning-making, or the pull of belonging, and the instinct to fill the gap by importing a psychology already takes a wrong step. It is worth being precise about why, because the mistake points directly toward what is actually needed.

The problem is not that psychology has nothing useful to say. It is that treating "the mind" or "motivation" as a separate domain to be studied by a separate discipline, and then imported into Marxism as a supplement, accepts a division that is itself part of the problem. We have separate academic disciplines studying "the economy," "the mind," "society" and "morality" not because reality is actually structured that way, but because classed societies have institutionally separated these domains. Analogously, the market claims subsistence; the state claims protection; the church or its secular equivalents claim meaning; the family claims connection and care; the academy neatly mirrors the arrangement by studying each in a different department. Over time, the institutional boundaries come to be experienced as ontological — as reflecting real divisions in the nature of things — and certain questions stop being asked altogether: why subsistence should be separated from participation, why protection should be detached from reciprocity, why care should be isolated from production. This division of intellectual labor is a historical and ideological product, not a discovery about how human life works.

The consequence for the problem at hand is direct. If a Marxist asks why nationalism outcompetes class solidarity, and reaches for a "psychology of belonging" to explain the pull of national identity, the analysis has already reproduced the separation it claims to oppose — treating belonging as one thing and material interest as another, when the whole point is that classed societies made them separate. The same applies to importing behavioral economics to explain why workers act against their "rational" class interest, or turning to affect theory to account for the emotional pull of reactionary movements. In each case, the borrowed framework studies one institutionally separated dimension and treats that separation as its starting point rather than as part of the problem. What is needed is not a supplement from another discipline but a materialist analysis that asks why these dimensions were separated in the first place — and what kind of social existence they were separated from and how to repurpose and integrate the useful scientific findings that do exist. To that end, we should start with the question, what kind of animal is Homo sapiens? What are the conditions under which this species reproduces itself socially? And what happens when those conditions are disrupted? These are empirical questions, answerable with evidence from evolutionary biology, reproductive biology, cultural anthropology and hunter-gatherer ethnography, comparative primatology, and ethology — and the answers have direct implications for the problem of solidarity.

What kind of animals are humans? The evidence

The answer that has emerged across multiple disciplines and research programs is convergent — and its implications for the problem of solidarity are direct. Solidarity is not a property you can add to an already-existing being; it is constitutive of how Homo sapiens functions as a social species.^[4] What distinguishes humans from most other social species is a capacity for coordination in general and for coalitionary egalitarianism — the collective enforcement against dominance hierarchies that Boehm calls "assertive egalitarianism." Under conditions that sustained egalitarian governance, the same material conditions — small scale, shared subsistence, the absence of separate institutions — also meant that social practices addressed multiple dimensions of need simultaneously, because the activities through which people cooperated, cared for each other, and coordinated were not yet sorted into distinct institutional domains.

Boehm's concept of "reverse dominance hierarchies" (1999) shows that egalitarianism is not a passive default but an actively maintained political order: hunter-gatherer societies enforce it through constant coalition-formation against would-be dominants — ridicule, ostracism and, in extreme cases, lethal sanction. Hrdy (2009) grounds a related finding in reproductive biology: humans are "cooperative breeders," a species in which the raising of offspring is shared between parents and alloparents.^[5] Our capacity for empathy, perspective-taking and intersubjectivity evolved as a consequence of this arrangement — infants who could solicit care from multiple caregivers survived; those who could not, did not. The human need for trust, connection, reciprocity and social embeddedness is grounded in our reproductive system as a species. When shared care collapses — as it does in the isolated nuclear family structures characteristic of modern capitalism — measurable pathologies result.

Lewis's long-term ethnographic work with the Mbendjele BaYaka shows what this looks like in practice: shared care, polyphonic music, food-sharing — activities in which dimensions we distinguish analytically (identity, participation, subsistence, connection) are not separated in lived experience. Crucially, this integration is not primarily a product of ritual or governance design; it is a consequence of the material conditions that also sustain egalitarian governance. Remove those conditions — through population growth, sedentism, resource concentration — and the integration begins to fragment whether or not anyone intends it.

This is not wholly new to the Marxist tradition. In the 1844 Manuscripts, Marx argued that humans are Gattungswesen — species-beings — whose distinctive character lies in their capacity for universal, creative, self-determining social activity, and that alienated labor fragments this species-character along multiple dimensions simultaneously: from the product, from the activity itself, from other humans, and from the species as such. That fourfold account already implies that what exploitation breaks is not merely an economic relation but a multidimensional form of life in which care, subsistence, meaning, and belonging were not yet sorted into separate domains.^[6]

Pre-class societies varied enormously — seasonal hierarchy, regional differences, divergent forms of gender relations — and the variation had material causes.^[7] What characterized them was not harmony but room: room for diversity, experimentation, renegotiation, and exit. Boehm's reverse dominance hierarchies involve constant political negotiation; Lewis's accounts of Mbendjele life are full of disputes and their resolution; the very mechanisms of egalitarian maintenance — ridicule, gossip, fission — presuppose disagreement. Fission was the ultimate mechanism: when disputes could not be resolved, people could leave. The availability of exit is what gave egalitarian enforcement its teeth and what class rule had to eliminate.^[8] Under conditions of extreme deprivation — famine, acute physical threat — the integrated character of social reproduction breaks down and subsistence acquires emergency priority (the grain of truth in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which describes not the normal human condition but a pathological limit case that classed societies systematically produce). But what remains constant through all the variation is the point that matters: human social reproduction depends on multiple dimensions — subsistence, care, identity, participation, recognition — and the species functions best when these are not separated across institutions controlled by others. Class rule hardens in-group/out-group boundaries that in the pre-class pattern were fluid and negotiable, providing rigid institutional categories — race, caste, citizenship, credential — and narrowing the scope of empathic response to those classified as deserving.

The dependence on collectively maintained social structures and education is not limited to our species. Elephant populations whose social organization has been destroyed by culling and poaching show dramatically elevated aggression, including the killing of rhinoceroses and other species — behavior essentially unknown in intact populations, with effects persisting for decades after the original disruption.^[9] Intact populations display individual recognition across decades, prolonged mourning at the remains of dead group members, and the intergenerational transmission of social knowledge through matriarchal lineages — capacities that are not uniquely human but characteristic of social species generally. The same logic applies to domesticated animals. Claws, beaks, tails and horns are removed 'preventively' because their owners want to prevent property devaluation of the dozens up through tens of thousands of animals who they force to live together and thereby deny the behavioral options and social structures the animals would otherwise gravitate to. Destroy and restrict the social order and living space, and the result is pathological behavior.

Comparative primatology makes the converse point. Sapolsky and Share documented a baboon troop (Forest Troop, Kenya) in which the most aggressive alpha males died from tuberculosis after eating contaminated meat from a tourist-lodge garbage dump.^[10] The surviving troop developed a dramatically different social order: reduced aggression, increased grooming, more affiliative behavior — and this culture persisted even after every original male had been replaced by transfer males, with newcomers adopting the less aggressive norms within months. What hierarchy had suppressed did not need to be invented; it re-emerged once the enforcers were gone. This does not undercut the argument that humans established egalitarianism through active coalitionary work — human social reproduction required symbolic culture, ritual, and kinship systems that baboons do not have. What comparative ethology establishes is the possibility: non-hierarchical order is available in the primate lineage without requiring the specific coalitionary mechanism.

The bonobo-chimpanzee divergence makes the complementary point through evolutionary time. Bonobos separated from chimpanzees when the Congo River formed, placing bonobos on the south bank where gorillas — the dominant competitor for terrestrial food — were absent. With terrestrial food sources less contested, selection favored less aggressive, more affiliative social structures: elaborate adult play not confined to juveniles, sexual behavior as social bonding and reconciliation, female coalition formation, food-sharing rituals, and mourning behaviors documented across multiple populations. Play, reconciliation, and ritualized collective processing of social events are not cultural luxuries layered onto a fundamentally aggressive primate nature; they are capacities that emerge wherever ecological conditions do not select against them. Class societies, which intensify resource competition and channel social organization through dominance hierarchies, systematically select against exactly these capacities — and then treat their absence as evidence that humans are "naturally" hierarchical.

What classed societies do to social life

Class domination restructures the social fabric — but it does not do so from scratch. Material conditions independent of class logic — sedentarization, population growth, ecological change, the logistics of feeding dense settlements — reorganize social practices on their own: separating activities that were previously embedded in the same relations, creating new functional specializations, altering who does what with whom. What class domination adds is the forcible locking of that reorganization into institutional structures that serve class reproduction, and the removal of collective control over how the reorganization proceeds. Through various forms of institutionalized violence — extraction, enclosure, debt, forced labor, military coercion — it captures reorganizations already underway, deepens them, and prevents the affected population from renegotiating the result.

The mechanism is consistent in its logic, if enormously varied in its historical forms. To maintain class rule, ruling classes must gain control over the material-reproductive base: over who produces what, who receives what, who cares for whom. That control requires reconfiguring production and distribution and the social relations in which they were previously embedded: kinship, ritual, reciprocity. This uncoupling is what Marx describes as the separation of the producer from the means of production — though the phrase is misleading if taken literally: producers remain physically coupled to the means of production (that is the whole point of exploitation); what they lose is collective control over them. And the process is broader than the production relation alone: it is the separation of social reproduction from its integrated basis and from the collective authority of the people doing the reproducing.

Scott (2017) identifies the general mechanism through which class domination consolidated: storable surplus creating resources worth controlling; record-keeping and accounting enabling the tracking of extraction; sedentism and population density making fission — the egalitarian mechanism for resolving irreconcilable disputes — prohibitively costly; and military capacity enabling enforcement.^[11] These preconditions are not specific to agriculture. On the Pacific Northwest coast, control of salmon runs and storage of dried fish produced hereditary stratification, slavery, and elaborate status hierarchies without grain cultivation — confirming that the decisive conditions are resource control and the prevention of exit, not agriculture as such. The prevention of exit compounds as surrounding societies are also affected by the same conditions — population growth, resource competition, class consolidation — progressively eliminating the non-state zones to which people could flee. Scott documents early states hemorrhaging population into "barbarian" refuge zones for millennia; those zones were only fully enclosed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries through colonial mapping, road-building, and military pacification (The Art of Not Being Governed, 2009). In Bronze Age Mesopotamia, where the best-documented early cases are found, urbanization, irrigation management, and the logistics of feeding dense settlements were already reorganizing social practices before anything recognizable as class domination had consolidated. As class dynamics consolidated, production became something primarily done for others rather than with them; distribution became something administered by temple and palace institutions rather than negotiated through kinship; ritual became specialized under a priestly class; protection became the province of armed retainers. The archaeological and textual record — debt tablets, ration lists, temple labor accounts — documents a gradual process in which activities that had been reorganizing for material reasons were assigned to separate institutional domains under centralized control.

The consequences unfold across multiple domains. The market (or the tributary system, or the slave relation) becomes the domain of subsistence - addressing material need but severed from the connection, identity and participation that previously accompanied production. The state becomes the domain of protection - real but detached from reciprocity and direct participation. Religion (or nationalism, or consumer culture) becomes the domain of identity and meaning - providing genuine forms of belonging but decoupled from material production. The family becomes the domain of connection/belonging - offering real care but isolated from the broader community and burdened with reproductive tasks that were previously carried collectively.

But the separation has depth, and the depth varies with the degree of commodification. In tributary and feudal societies, the domains are separated but the separation is shallow: the same people circulate across them, and the domains share enough overlapping logic — personal obligation, face-to-face authority, religious cosmology — that the moral registers remain mutually intelligible and a single ideological framework (Aristotelian teleology, Confucian hierarchy, Vedic dharma) can plausibly span them. Under formal subsumption of social reproduction, the market becomes a distinct domain with its own logic while other domains — household, community, religious life — retain much of their pre-capitalist organizational capacity; the separation deepens but the non-market domains are not yet internally restructured. Under real subsumption, the market logic penetrates the other domains themselves: the household is reorganized around wage dependence and commodity inputs, education is gatekept by credentialing markets, care is progressively commodified, and each domain's internal logic is reshaped by a commodification process that has reached different depths in different domains. What capitalism does to the institutional separation is therefore not merely to extend it but to deepen it qualitatively — by restructuring each domain's internal logic rather than merely placing them under different governance — and the process is progressive: each stage of commodification (destruction of non-commodified alternatives, formal subsumption, real subsumption, financial mediation, securitization) creates the institutional infrastructure for the next. The depth of separation determines both what competing solidarities must re-integrate and how difficult the re-integration is: the deeper the commodification of a domain, the more thoroughly its internal practices have been reshaped, and the more organizational work is required to build alternatives that operate on a different logic.

The family deserves particular attention because it is not merely one institutional domain among several — it was specifically and repeatedly constructed to destroy the collective forms of social life that sustained solidarity. The privatized patriarchal household is not a stable institutional achievement of class rule. It is a contested arrangement requiring periodic reimposition — both because alternatives keep regenerating from below and because the imposed forms themselves are continually challenged by those living under them.

The pattern recurs across centuries. Early modern witch trials destroyed communal networks — such as healing, midwifery, informal authority — that sustained non-household social structures. The mechanism was the destruction of social organization; the accusations operated through the available pretext of religious-orthodoxy enforcement in a period when confessional consolidation and emergent nationalism were intertwined (Protestant and Catholic states cooperated in the persecution while at war in every other respect).^[12] Enclosure destroyed the commons that had enabled non-household forms of social reproduction — shared grazing, gleaning rights, fuel access — forcing dependence on the wage and the household simultaneously. And centuries later, in nineteenth-century France, Donzelot (1977) documents bourgeois reformers having to deliberately impose the family form on a working class that largely resisted it again. Targets were the cabaret, the street, and the workshop — spaces where working-class collective organization occurred and where people spent their free time. The wife was instrumentalized as the agent of her husband's subordination: the housewife was "the privileged instrument for civilizing the working class," and housing was designed as a disciplinary enclosure ("the grave of the riot").

In Imperial Germany, the Vereinsgesetz — banning women from political organizations — forced the creation of separate women's infrastructure; when the law changed in 1908 and women were integrated into the SPD, the autonomy that separate organization had produced was destroyed (Quataert 1979). And thanks to oil and the internal combustion engine, the twentieth-century US suburban model could take this to its spatial extreme: car-dependent, residentially zoned, dangerous for children to be outside, stripped of public spaces where casual collective life could occur — making the privatized family not just an institutional domain but the only form of social life the built environment permits. Each time collective alternatives emerge — working-class neighborhood sociality, communal childcare, extended kinship networks, women's autonomous organizations — they are destroyed and privatized forms reimposed.

But the family's durability as a competing solidarity does not derive solely from top-down imposition. It has two distinct forms of bottom-up pull. Men derive non-reciprocal use values — domestic labor, care, sexual availability, deference — that markets cannot provide and that they have material reasons to defend; the companion essay develops this as a class relation with its own motive force independent of ruling-class strategy. And all parents derive authority over children — control over their labor, time, development, and social world — that collective arrangements would distribute and subject to accountability. Most authors foreground the gendered dimension; the parental one is at least as consequential, because it gives both parents a stake in the privatized form. The family outcompetes collective alternatives because it is anchored from three directions simultaneously: class rulers construct it as a disciplinary institution; it offers men non-reciprocal access to use values they cannot obtain elsewhere; and it grants parents a domain of unaccountable authority over dependents. This triple anchoring is what makes it among the most resilient of the institutional domains class domination produces.

How the restructuring is normalized

The institutional normalization is reinforced by narrative. Every class society produces stories that make the separation of domains appear natural or divinely ordained. The pattern is visible from the earliest documented cases — Mesopotamian creation myths in which humans were created to perform labor for the gods, the opening books of the Torah in which expulsion from a garden of effortless abundance leads within a few generations to God favoring the pastoralist Abel over the farmer Cain, naturalizing both the herding economy on which early Israelite class stratification depended and the domestication of animals on which it rested — through to modern meritocratic ideology, and its logic is consistent: each sphere of life has its proper ruler, and the laborer simply works. The Delphic maxim gnōthi seauton ("know thyself"), which in its original context meant not the modern injunction to introspection but the warning not to overstep one's station, captures the spirit precisely. These narrative traditions do not merely reflect the restructuring; they actively produce consent for it, by presenting the separated, hierarchical organization of social life as the proper order of things.

The underlying logic is meritocratic in the broad sense: each class society produces criteria by which people are sorted into those who deserve more and those who deserve less, and treats that sorting as evidence that the social order is justified. The specific markers shift — divine favor, noble blood, martial prowess, bureaucratic competence, educational credentials — but the reasoning is constant: those at the top belong there because they possess the relevant quality, and those at the bottom lack it. Modern societies are distinctive mainly in the thoroughness with which this logic is embedded in institutions, from schooling to the welfare system, but the structure is old. The normalization is backed, in every period, by institutional violence — from tributary extraction and temple corvée through feudal obligation to modern policing, incarceration, credential gatekeeping, and welfare conditionality.

But narrative and meritocratic reasoning are only one of four modes through which compliance is produced — and arguably not the most important. Therborn's analysis, which the companion framework develops, distinguishes active justification (the arrangement is deserved), accommodation (other things matter more than contesting it), foreclosure (alternatives appear impossible, whether through cognitive fragmentation or through institutional ratchets that lock in existing arrangements), and endogenous generation (the capitalist-specific mechanism by which the market's ordinary operations produce observable confirmations of meritocratic reasoning). The critical finding is that accommodation and foreclosure do more work than justificatory belief in advanced capitalism. Most people do not positively believe the system is just; they believe that challenging it would cost more than enduring it (accommodation), or that no alternative is available (foreclosure). Competing solidarities operate primarily through accommodation: they address enough dimensions of need — belonging, identity, recognition, order — that the unaddressed dimensions (subsistence, autonomy, the capacity to renegotiate the arrangement) feel less urgent than what the solidarity provides. The experiential satisfaction the base receives is real, and contesting the class-serving decisions the leadership makes in other dimensions would risk losing it. This is not false consciousness but rational accommodation — the solidarity works for the base in the dimensions the base participates for, and contesting the arrangement would mean losing that provision without any guarantee of replacement. Domain separation is the organizational mechanism; accommodation is the subjective experience it produces.

These four modes operate fractally — at the macro level (institutional architectures like fiscal rules and treaty constraints that make alternatives unavailable), at the meso level (organizational structures that screen class divergence through domain separation), and at the micro level (individual workers interpreting systemic failure as personal failure because the institutional context offers no other interpretation). The reinforcement across levels is what makes the normalization so durable: even when people see through the justificatory narrative (and most do), accommodation and foreclosure at the institutional and organizational level prevent that skepticism from translating into action, while endogenous generation keeps producing fresh empirical confirmations of the justificatory narrative regardless of how many people doubt it.

A further mechanism — ignorance production — operates alongside normalization but is analytically distinct from it. Normalization makes the existing arrangement appear natural or inevitable; ignorance production prevents the knowledge that would enable structural understanding from forming in the first place. The disciplinary fragmentation of the academy ensures that the connections between economic exploitation, social pathology, political domination, and historical process cannot be made from any single disciplinary position. Credentialing pipelines select for people whose training has taught them to study one domain without asking how it relates to the others. The result is not that structural knowledge is suppressed (though it sometimes is) but that the institutional organization of knowledge production makes it structurally difficult to produce. The left's failure to theorize the multidimensionality of social reproduction — the gap this essay aims to address — may therefore be not merely a theoretical failure but a product of the same disciplinary architecture it would need to overcome.

But the readiness to sort people into hierarchies of deserving and undeserving is not only institutionally trained; it grafts onto the dominance tendencies that coalitionary egalitarianism suppresses but does not eliminate, and onto the parochial tendency that couples in-group bonding with out-group exclusion. Meritocratic categories do not create these tendencies — but they determine where the parochial boundary falls, who counts as a legitimate object of concern, and what categories organize the sorting.^[13]

The grafting is not automatic; it must be actively produced in each generation, and the production is routinely resisted in ways that reveal the wider baseline it works against. Children must be taught to accept the exclusions class society requires: the distress many children display when they learn where meat comes from has to be overridden through normalization and euphemism before the acceptance registers as natural;^[14] in owning-class households, children raised primarily by domestic workers or enslaved caregivers must be taught to perform superiority toward the people who actually care for them — to dissociate from attachments that the daily experience of being cared for would otherwise produce — because a child who bonds with the help rather than with the absent parents threatens both the household's class hierarchy and parental authority. The training is effortful and frequently incomplete, which is why class societies reinforce it through institutional architecture (spatial separation, uniforms, modes of address, the organization of domestic space) rather than relying on instruction alone.^[15] That the narrowing has to be continuously produced against the grain of what cooperative breeding generated is evidence that the species-typical scope of empathic response is wider than what any class society permits — and that the narrowing never fully succeeds is why the capacity reasserts itself wherever the training is interrupted.

The result is that the class-structured organization of social life comes to appear natural — as though the institutional arrangement were a reflection of how needs work rather than a product of who governs their fulfillment.

The competing solidarities landscape under capitalism

The pattern described above is general to classed societies. What distinguishes capitalism is that it adds a structural layer of atomisation that operates independently of any ruling-class strategy. Once market dependence is generalised — once people depend on selling their labor or their products to survive — their interdependence runs through exchange rather than through solidarity. They need each other, but the need is mediated by the market: the baker needs the customer, the worker needs the employer, the tenant needs the landlord, and these relations of mutual dependence are experienced as individual transactions between strangers rather than as collective bonds. This is what Endnotes (Unity in Separation, 2015) calls "the unity-in-separation of market society": people become ever more interdependent through the market, but the form of that interdependence dissolves rather than strengthens the capacity for collective action. The commodification sequence the companion framework develops (six stages from destruction of alternatives through formal and real subsumption to financial mediation, securitisation, and state de-risking) progressively deepens this separation at each stage — and at each stage, the competing solidarities that fill the resulting gaps become more necessary and more difficult to replace with class-based alternatives, because the structural ground on which solidarity would need to be built has been further atomised. The point is not that ruling-class manipulation is unimportant — the preceding sections show how deliberately and repeatedly collective alternatives have been destroyed — but that even without active manipulation, market society produces the separation that competing solidarities exploit. This is why they are so difficult to outcompete: they are not just imposed from above but are the spontaneous response to a structural condition that market dependence itself generates. The suburban spatial model described above materialises this atomisation in the built environment, making it physically irreversible even where market conditions change, and the companion framework's urban design analysis traces how this was engineered through state policy (highway subsidies, FHA redlining, eminent domain) rather than produced by market forces alone.

What capitalism then produces on this atomised ground is a highly flexible system of commodified substitutes bound to class reproduction. Consumer goods substitute for participation, social media for community, personal branding for identity. These are what remains after the commodification sequence has restructured each domain's internal practices: the guild that once provided participation, identity, and subsistence simultaneously has been replaced by the labor market (subsistence only, conditional on selling yourself), the professional association (identity, conditional on credentialing), and the LinkedIn profile (pseudo-participation in a commodity form). The substitutes provide real forms of connection and recognition. But they are partial and conditional, addressing isolated dimensions of need within institutional structures that serve accumulation.

Many pre-capitalist religious formations proved extraordinarily durable and adaptive, and the differences between them are at least as significant as any shared contrast with capitalism. The distinction is mainly in their generative capacity and adaptability. Pre-capitalist competing solidarities were inherited, adapted, reformed, or syncretized — religious traditions routinely absorbed local practices, deities, and cosmologies to appeal to local populations, the mendicant orders emerged within feudalism, and so on — but the process was slow and depended on institutional continuity. When material catastrophe discredited existing institutions, replacement was constrained. The Black Death illustrates the point for the European case: a third or more of the population dead, the economic base of serfdom destroyed by the resulting labor shortage, and the Church's claim to provide meaning and protection exposed — yet the feudal order generated no fundamentally new competing solidarities in response. Modern class societies are far more resilient in this respect — not because they are better governed but because wage labor goes hand in hand with a much wider range of sources of meaning and identity (consumer culture, professional identity, national belonging, lifestyle communities, digital subcultures), none of which need threaten class rule to function as competing solidarities. The capacity to generate commodified forms of belonging as old ones erode is one of capitalism's most distinctive features.

The nation-state is not itself a single competing solidarity — it is the institutional architecture through which multiple competing solidarities operate. Nationalism, sectoralism, welfare-state belonging, civic identification, and ethnic solidarity are analytically distinct formations, each addressing a different configuration of need-dimensions, but all organized through national institutions. What looks like "national solidarity" in most contexts is actually the combined pull of several competing solidarities channeled through the same institutional apparatus: the welfare state addresses subsistence, law addresses protection, citizenship addresses recognition and identity, the national narrative provides order/harmony, elections provide a bounded form of participation. Each is real. Each is also class-structured: the protections serve property relations, the participation is bounded by the interests of capital, the redistribution is calibrated to maintain the labor force without threatening accumulation, and the identity is defined to cut across class lines — binding worker and employer together as nationals against the foreign worker who shares the class position but not the passport.

But the national frame is not merely a frame — it is materially constituted by the imperial division of labor. As the companion framework document develops in detail, metropolitan welfare states were never purely domestic achievements of class struggle; they were materially conditioned by imperial surplus extraction — cheap inputs that suppressed the cost of goods workers consumed, favorable currency-hierarchy positions that enabled credit creation independent of the tax base, and drain mechanisms that transferred value from the periphery to the center. The welfare state's dimensional provision (subsistence, protection, recognition through citizenship) was funded through circuits that extended far beyond the national territory, and the national solidarity it produced was therefore embedded in an international extraction architecture the national frame rendered invisible. This matters for the competing solidarities analysis because the erosion of welfare provision — the process that opens the gaps competing solidarities fill — is not a generic "neoliberal restructuring" but the specific unraveling of the welfare-imperialism circuit under competitive pressures. Different welfare regimes produce different competing-solidarity landscapes when they erode: the liberal regime's minimal provision produces MAGA and Brexit (identity and recognition filling the widest material gap); the corporatist regime's status-preserving provision produces the AfD and Rassemblement National (status anxiety among workers whose relative position is threatened); the social-democratic regime's universalist provision produces the Sweden Democrats (the most dimensionally comprehensive welfare state producing the sharpest perceived loss when eroded). Analyzing competing solidarities within a purely domestic frame misses this: the gap they fill was produced by an international architecture, and the form they take is determined by which welfare regime is eroding.

The framework situates this erosion within a broader pattern. The welfare-circuit is one of several deferral mechanisms (alongside the spatial fix, the labor-supply fix, the financial fix, and the ecological fix) through which capital has historically managed its contradictions, and these mechanisms are now reaching their limits together rather than sequentially. The erosion of welfare provision is therefore not a self-contained cycle but one face of a simultaneous-saturation dynamic: as ecological, fiscal, and financial limits tighten at once, the material basis for restoring welfare provision is itself contracting. This makes the gaps competing solidarities fill wider and more durable than any single-mechanism analysis would predict, and it explains why restoration-oriented left strategies (rebuild the welfare state, expand public provision) meet a resistance that is not purely political: the configuration that sustained twentieth-century welfare provision cannot be reassembled even if the political will existed to try.

A further mechanism deepened the vulnerability: the welfare state absorbed the functions that pre-existing left organizations had performed — mutual aid, education, housing, cultural life — which removed the reason people participated in them. The Dutch pillarized system (verzuiling), the German SPD's alternative culture, Austrian Red Vienna, Belgian and Scandinavian workers' movements all organized leisure, education, culture, housing, and community alongside workplace rights — they were competing solidarities in their own right, addressing multiple dimensions simultaneously under (varying degrees of) collective governance. The welfare state took over these functions, and bourgeois fractions encouraged the transfer because state-mediated provision was more controllable than movement-mediated provision. When competition-state restructuring then eroded the welfare provision, there was nothing to fall back on: the organizational infrastructure that had preceded the welfare state had already been absorbed, and the left had outsourced identity to the nation, meaning to religion, and community to the private family — leaving every non-economic dimension available for the right's competing solidarities to claim.

The welfare state's institutional culture compounded the problem: the professional and bureaucratic types who administered provision often treated working-class recipients with a patronizing condescension that reproduced the civilizing-mission logic domestically, making the welfare state's erosion feel less like a loss and more like the removal of an apparatus that had never respected them.

National solidarity also functions as a vehicle for what the framework calls gradient climbing — the process through which subordinate populations improve their position on the incorporation gradient by serving the imperial project. Scottish settlers displacing the Irish, Irish Americans policing Black populations, Sikh regiments controlling colonized peoples, poor whites enforcing racial hierarchy in the American South: in each case, national, ethnic, or racial solidarity provides the organizational form through which workers gain real material and status advantages at the expense of those below them on the gradient. This creates a structural interest in maintaining the hierarchy that competing solidarities then cement — the solidarity is not merely identity but a material relationship to extraction, and climbing the gradient through imperial service binds the climber to the system more effectively than any ideology could.

What makes the nation-state's pull so powerful is not dimensional breadth as such — the case studies below show competing solidarities that match or exceed it — but that its dimensional provision is backed by sovereign coercive capacity: the power to tax, legislate, police, imprison, conscript, grant or deny citizenship. Other competing solidarities operate within or alongside the nation-state; the nation-state frames the field on which they compete.

That sovereign capacity does not only provide — it also clears the field. Not identifying nationally, or identifying against the nation, carries costs from social exclusion to imprisonment to death. Treason laws, sedition charges, deportation, conscription, the denial of rights to non-citizens, and war itself — which binds populations to the state through shared sacrifice, shared danger, and the criminalization of dissent — ensure that the nation-state's dimensional provision operates on a field where alternatives have been sanctioned out of existence. This is the "field cleared" mechanism at its largest scale.

Nationalism proper — the felt identification with the nation as such, as distinct from the dimensional provision that national institutions deliver — becomes the dominant solidarity primarily under crisis conditions, when the threat-response mechanism described below activates the national boundary as the salient in-group and overrides the provision that normally does the binding.

The same logic operates at every level of scale - and each competing solidarity enforces as well as attracts. Sectoral organizations enforce through closed shops, credential requirements and apprenticeship barriers. Religious communities enforce through excommunication, shunning and marriage rules. Ethnic solidarities police membership through codes of loyalty, shame and ostracism. To belong is also to comply - and the enforcement works because it is inseparable from the real protections that belonging provides.

The needs-dimension framework as a diagnostic instrument

What we lack so far is a vocabulary precise enough to analyze the consequences of the restructuring described above — to say which dimensions of social life are being addressed by which institutional structures, which have been fragmented, and how competing solidarities address those fragmentations. For this, two instruments developed outside the Marxist tradition prove useful.

Manfred Max-Neef, a Chilean economist, developed a framework of fundamental human needs in Human Scale Development (1991) that presents needs as non-hierarchical: no need is inherently more important than any other, and the frustration of any single need produces pathologies regardless of whether other needs are met.^[16] Max-Neef identifies nine dimensions — subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, idleness/leisure, creation, identity and freedom — and distinguishes sharply between needs (few and broadly universal) and satisfiers (historically and culturally variable). Marshall Rosenberg refined Max-Neef's categories through decades of conflict-resolution practice, exposing several gaps.^[17] The framework this essay uses builds on both, grounded in the biological and anthropological evidence developed above.^[18]

Thirteen dimensions: (1) subsistence, (2) protection, (3) connection/belonging — community, reciprocal obligation, warmth, care, (4) recognition — being seen, known, acknowledged as a specific person whose situation matters, (5) understanding, (6) participation, (7) play — experimentation, improvisation, joy, the mode of exercising agency freely, (8) creation, (9) identity, (10) autonomy/freedom — the capacity to self-direct, to interpret and reinterpret, to author one's own adaptation, (11) order/harmony — the felt sense of existing within a coherent moral and social cosmos, (12) efficacy/power-to — the capacity to act in the world and see effects, experienced agency, and (13) mourning/celebration — ritualized collective processing of loss, transition, and joy. Authenticity — whether a satisfier addresses the need on its own terms or instrumentally — is not a fourteenth dimension but a quality of how any dimension is addressed, analogous to Max-Neef's satisfier typology discussed below.

Several of these dimensions are systematically distorted by class rule in ways that bear directly on the competing solidarities problem. Class societies channel efficacy/power-to into hierarchical forms: when collective governance over social reproduction has been appropriated, the primary route to experienced agency becomes positional advancement within hierarchies one did not design. Status pursuit — the active pursuit of standing — is the individualized form that power-to takes under class rule. People pursue status because hierarchical standing is how class societies make agency available, which may in turn inculcate vanity. The credential unlocks capacity. The promotion expands scope of action. The community role provides a position from which one's actions matter and offers recognition. Status hierarchies also capture play: they are played, with rules, advancement markers, and the intrinsic motivation that competitive play generates — the games are real, the experimentation is genuine, but the rules serve class reproduction.

This is the mechanism of depth. A competing solidarity achieves depth not only through worldview comprehensiveness or aspirational horizon but through providing avenues for experienced agency woven into the person's daily life — their worldview, their crisis response, their navigation of circumstances. The mosque volunteer who organized relief after a neighbor's crisis exercised agency, mattered, holds standing that reflects real capacity to act. The RSS pracharak advancing through the system is playing a status game whose rules structure his daily life.

The left's best historical cases achieved authentic play — the ateneos valued experimentation and cultural creation for their own sake, the SPD's singing and cycling clubs were done for pleasure, the early Proletkult studios treated workers as creative beings. But specific mechanisms erode authenticity: professionalization converts play into performance (the SPD's singing societies prioritizing quality over participation — authentic play becoming a pseudo-satisfier for creation), metabolization instrumentalizes it (the Proletkult's pre-written scenarios with "suggested answers"), and unhealthy cadre discipline outright suppresses it (Rojava's self-criticism sessions).

The right faces professionalization too — the AKP was metabolized, megachurches professionalize worship into performance and undercut community. But the erosion is structurally slower, for three reasons. First, the right's play operates through institutional infrastructure — churches, mosques, temples — that persists independently of any specific political movement; the left's cultural infrastructure depends on the political organization, so when the organization professionalizes, the play goes with it. Second, system-serving play faces no pressure to justify itself politically: the shakha games, the church picnic, the RSS festivals can just be play, because they don't threaten class rule. Oppositional organizations subject play to political evaluation — everything must serve the struggle — which is the mechanism through which instrumentalization operates. Third, the state tolerates or actively supports the right's institutional infrastructure while placing the left's under constant threat, creating survival pressure that makes every activity a candidate for instrumentalization. The professionalization trap is not a failure of left organizational culture as such; it is the consequence of building oppositional institutions under conditions where the state and the organization's own survival logic both push toward instrumentalizing whatever the base values for its own sake. The right's play persists because neither pressure operates with comparable force.

If we take this framework seriously, then every human being - regardless of their position in the division of labor, their credentials, their nationality, their perceived "merit" - has these thirteen dimensions of need, and the frustration of any one of them produces pathologies. This is more radical than it may appear.

Classed societies do not only restructure the fabric of social reproduction; they also teach people to accept that some people's needs matter less than others', to further refine in-/outgroup thinking. The meritocratic reasoning that normalizes the restructuring is, among other things, a systematic training in the denial of need-universality. We learn, through institutions from schooling to the workplace, to sort people into categories of more and less deserving, and to accept that the needs of the "undeserving" - the uncredentialed, the unemployed, the undocumented, the imprisoned - can be neglected without moral cost. We also learn not to draw attention to needs at all: to articulate a need is to expose a vulnerability, and classed societies punish vulnerability. The result is a double suppression - needs are both hierarchically ranked and driven from acceptable discourse. The needs framework, by insisting that needs are universal and non-hierarchical, cuts against this logic at the root. It does not tell us that everyone's needs are being met; it tells us that everyone's needs exist, with equal standing, whether or not the social order acknowledges them.

The framework is sharpened further thanks to its second distinction: between needs and satisfiers. Needs, in Max-Neef's and Rosenberg's frameworks, are few and broadly universal; satisfiers - the concrete means by which needs are met - are historically and culturally variable, and they vary enormously in scope. A community feast and a supermarket both address subsistence, but they differ in how many other dimensions they simultaneously address, how deeply they address each one, and under what governance. The feast is a synergistic satisfier: it provides participation, identity and connection through collectively governed practice, and because these dimensions are integrated in a single activity, each reinforces the others: the shared labor of preparation deepens the connection, the connection deepens the sense of participation, the participation deepens the identity. The supermarket is a pseudo-satisfier on several dimensions — autonomy through consumer choice, identity through brand selection, a form of order through the organized environment — addressing each thinly, through commodified forms that serve accumulation and replace collective provisioning with individual consumption. The institutional separation described above — market, state, church, family, each primarily organized around a limited range of dimensions under class-structured control — is, in these terms, the systematic replacement of collectively governed satisfiers by ones that serve class reproduction. The commodification sequence traces the mechanism: as each domain is driven from destruction of non-commodified alternatives through formal subsumption to real subsumption and financial mediation, the satisfiers it produces shift from synergistic toward pseudo — because the domain's internal practices are progressively restructured around market logic, and market logic addresses dimensions thinly and conditionally by design. The feast becomes the supermarket not through a single transformation but through a sequence of enclosures, each creating the conditions for the next. This distinction allows us to ask not "what needs do workers have?" but "what satisfiers are produced for those needs, by whom, in which institutional domain, at what depth of commodification, and with what effect on the other dimensions?"

A further specification is necessary: class position determines which dimensions are unmet and therefore which competing solidarities are attractive. A deindustrialized worker whose subsistence and protection needs are unmet enters a different solidarity than a professional-managerial worker whose material needs are met through market provision but whose recognition and order/harmony needs are unmet because community infrastructure has been dissolved by competition-state restructuring. The first is drawn to movements that provide material welfare (the AKP's coal delivery, the Panthers' survival programs); the second to movements that provide meaning and moral cosmos (Christian nationalism's biblical worldview, the wellness-to-conspiracy pipeline). Analyzing competing solidarities by what movements provide, without tracking the class-specific pathways through which individuals reach them, misses why the same movement binds different class fractions for different reasons — and why the dimensional gap that a given movement fills is produced by a specific configuration of welfare-regime erosion, not by a generic "lack of community."

Return to the competing solidarities described above. Each covers a different cluster of dimensions; each leaves gaps that are precisely where the others gain their foothold. Religious communities are strong where the state is weak — connection/belonging, recognition, order/harmony, mourning/celebration — but typically enforce conformity and condition material provision on membership. Sectoral organizations address subsistence and a bounded form of participation and identity — but only for those inside the sector. The nation-state, as discussed above, combines dimensional provision with sovereign coercive capacity but offers little genuine connection/belonging and constrains participation to forms compatible with accumulation. The case studies below develop these patterns in detail — up to and including movements that attempted to cover nearly the full dimensional range.

The analytical toolkit: six tools for reading competing solidarities

The diagnostic vocabulary is necessary but not sufficient. The central claim a materialist analysis adds is that the fulfillment of one group's needs is generally structurally dependent on the frustration of another's. Max-Neef's satisfier typology specifies how: destructive satisfiers address one need while undermining others (arms races that promise protection while producing insecurity, forced labor that produces subsistence while destroying participation); pseudo-satisfiers create an appearance of addressing a need without doing so (symbolic recognition that screens material deprivation, consumer choice that simulates autonomy); inhibiting satisfiers over-provide on one dimension while constraining others (paternalistic welfare that addresses subsistence while suppressing autonomy); singular satisfiers address one need neutrally; and synergistic satisfiers address multiple needs simultaneously, each reinforcing the others — the community feast, the collectively governed workspace, the cooperative that provides subsistence, participation, and connection in one institutional form. Class societies systematically produce the first three while undermining the conditions for the last — and this is not a design flaw but a structural necessity of class reproduction. The needs framework can name these and identify what they destroy and omit, but it cannot explain why they are systematically produced and reproduced — Max-Neef's implicit assumption is that better alternatives are available if only we designed better policies.^[19]

The ideological mechanism is consistent: ruling classes have argued that the propertyless, women, the enslaved and the colonized are simply part of nature — beasts to be managed rather than persons whose needs count. The biological evidence mustered earlier illustrates that need-universality is a reality, not a normative assertion.^[20] What the materialist analysis explains is why that reality is systematically denied: because class reproduction requires it. The denial is applied most completely to domesticated animals, whose entire social existence is structured by class-mediated production relations — making animal use the point at which the logic becomes explicit doctrine rather than tacit practice.^[21]

A clarification is necessary before proceeding, because the dimensional vocabulary risks a misreading the essay's own argument should prevent. The thirteen dimensions are correctly non-hierarchical as needs — the deprivation of any one produces real pathologies, and need-universality is a biological reality. But class relations are not a fourteenth dimension, nor are they reducible to the subsistence dimension. They operate at a different analytical level: class determines the governance architecture through which all thirteen dimensions are organized — which satisfiers are produced, who controls them, and in whose interest. The institutional separation described above — market, state, church, family — is itself the product of class governance, not of any single dimension's deprivation.

This provides the criterion for classifying movements as system-serving or system-challenging. A movement is system-serving when its governance and structural function reproduce class rule, regardless of how many dimensions it addresses or whether it redistributes. A movement challenges class rule when its governance enables the base to contest class-serving arrangements and reorganize the satisfier architecture under collective control. The distinction is not which dimensions are prioritized but who governs the satisfiers and in whose interest. Redistribution under class-serving governance — the Welfare Party's coal, the AKP's hospitals — is precisely what the right-wing cases in this essay do; calling it "left" confuses dimensional provision with the governance question. The left cases are "left" not because they prioritize subsistence but because they attempted collective governance over multiple dimensions simultaneously — the ateneos over participation and cultural life, Red Vienna over housing and welfare, Rojava over gender and local administration.

Work concentrates this logic. The workplace is the domain where the most dimensions are simultaneously determined by class relations: participation, autonomy, recognition, identity, connection, creation — all experienced or denied in the context that occupies most of people's waking lives. The "class question" is not the subsistence question alone but the question of how the dominant domain of social life is governed and how that governance shapes what is available in every other domain. This is why workplace organizing remains necessary even though this essay focuses on non-workplace dimensions, and why the focus on those dimensions is not a departure from class analysis but an extension of it: competing solidarities operate in domains class rule has separated from collective control, and the question is whether the left can build satisfiers in those domains under governance that differs from what the right provides.

Six further analytical tools are needed before the case studies can be read properly. The organizing dimension provides order/harmony — a felt sense of coherence. The aspirational dimension provides meaning and transcendence — a horizon connecting daily practice to something larger. The governance form determines whether participation, autonomy, and recognition are genuinely addressed or constrained within any given unit. The sub-organizational architecture determines how the movement's units relate to each other and what each unit delivers at its own level. The reproduction conditions determine whether a competing solidarity persists over time, structurally analogous to the framework document's mediating layer. The terms of belonging determine who is included, on what conditions, and at what cost, which is what determines whether a solidarity is emancipatory or parochial even when its dimensional breadth is identical.

The first concerns what might be called the organizing dimension — the dimension around which a competing solidarity's coherence is maintained and through which access to the other dimensions is gated. The framework presents these dimensions as non-hierarchical, and the materialist correction above establishes that they are universally present. But in practice, every competing solidarity organizes itself around one or two dimensions that function as the structuring principle — the dimension that determines the movement's character, screens other dimensions from scrutiny, and shapes its trajectory. Hindutva organizes around identity (Hindu unity), and access to welfare, participation, and protection is gated through it; economics is subordinated and screened from view. Hezbollah organizes around protection (resistance), and welfare, identity, and participation all derive their coherence from the resistance frame. The AKP organized initially around subsistence (welfare provision), then shifted to identity (sanctified neoliberalism) as the movement was metabolized. American Christian nationalism organizes around identity (ethno-religious belonging) without a material dimension to anchor it, which makes the organizing principle volatile. The Spanish anarchists organized around participation (collective governance) — the ateneos were held together by the practice of self-governance, not by ideology or material provision. The Black Panthers organized initially around protection (community defense and survival), but the shift from organized to mobilized governance meant the organizing principle shifted from participation to party loyalty.

The organizing dimension determines three things. First, what can be contested internally: only what doesn't threaten the organizing dimension. Hindu economic policy can't be contested because it would threaten Hindu unity; Hezbollah's neoliberal accommodation can't be contested because it would threaten the resistance frame. Second, what class divergence can be screened: economics is screened when identity organizes (right-wing cases); culture is screened when economics organizes (Red Vienna). Third, vulnerability: the movement is most fragile when the organizing dimension is threatened — Hezbollah without the Israeli threat, Hindutva without the Muslim Other, Christian nationalism without the culture-war enemy.

The second tool is the aspirational dimension — the promise of a future that transcends the present. Religious competing solidarities provide this through eschatology and divine purpose; nationalist ones through historical destiny and civilizational renewal; the left historically provided it through the promise of revolution and emancipation. Aspirational satisfiers are not present deliverables but horizons that make present sacrifice meaningful and connect daily practice to something that exceeds daily life. When the left lost this — when social democracy became technocratic management of the present rather than a horizon of transformation — it lost a satisfier the right still has. Make America Great Again, Hindu Rashtra, the Caliphate, the Kingdom of God all offer what "responsible fiscal policy" and "evidence-based governance" do not: a future worth sacrificing for. The aspirational dimension attaches to the organizing dimension — the promise is always a promise of the organizing principle fulfilled (the Hindu nation realized, the resistance victorious, the revolution completed). Its presence is what gives competing solidarities their binding depth across time; its absence is what makes technocratic movements dimensionally thin even when they provide material welfare competently.

The third tool concerns governance form, which the case studies will show is as consequential as dimensional coverage. The distinction between organized and mobilized movements (drawing on McAlevey 2016) is not binary but a spectrum. At the organized end: the base develops its own analysis, designs its own strategy, retains control over leadership, and can contest decisions through structural mechanisms. At the mobilized end: staff or cadre direct supporters toward staff-designed actions, and the base participates within a framework set by others. Between these poles: movements with organized bases but informal vanguards whose authority escapes accountability (the Spanish anarchists' FAI); movements where leadership sets the framework but the base has de facto autonomy within it (the SPD's "permissively directed" culture); movements that redistribute materially but govern paternalistically (Red Vienna); and movements where cadre direction coexists with genuine participatory structures whose scope is limited to local administration (Rojava). The governance form matters because it determines whether class divergence between leadership and base can be noticed and contested, whether the movement is vulnerable to leadership targeting (COINTELPRO), and whether the organizational form can sustain analysis of its own internal power relations — including gendered domination. But governance form also has an epistemic dimension that goes beyond contestation: who composes the organization determines what it can see. An organization composed overwhelmingly of men cannot generate the perspective from which gendered exclusion would be visible — not because of bad faith but because the composition does not produce the knowledge. This is why Mujeres Libres had to organize autonomously: the mixed organization could not see what autonomous organization immediately revealed. It is why Rojava's binding co-presidency is not merely a fairness mechanism but an epistemic one — changing the composition changes what the governance structure can perceive and therefore what it can address. Inclusive composition is not an add-on to organized governance; it is a precondition for the organization to see the problems it needs to solve.

The fourth tool concerns sub-organizational architecture, which governance form alone cannot address. Governance form asks who decides within a given organizational unit. It does not ask how the movement's units are composed, which unit decides what, what falls between units entirely, and what is therefore invisible from any participatory position within the movement. Dimensional breadth is almost always produced through specialized sub-organizations: the RSS has shakha, VHP, ABVP, BMS, Vidya Bharati, Seva Bharati (36+ in total); the SPD had party + trade unions + singing societies + gymnastics clubs + cooperatives + Kinderfreunde + women's organizations; Hezbollah has military, political, welfare, educational, and cultural wings; the MST has thirteen sectors. A sub-organization typically addresses a narrower range of dimensions than the movement as a whole — a cooperative addresses subsistence and participation but not play or mourning; a singing society addresses play and mourning but not subsistence or protection — and the movement's total breadth emerges from the combination. Three variables determine what that combination produces: specialization (how narrow is each sub-organization), integration (how are sub-organizations connected to each other through shared membership, cross-accountability, or common governance), and legibility (can the base in one sub-organization see and contest what happens in others).

The sub-organizational architecture is where the framework document's devolution logic operates inside movements: participation is routed toward units that address the base's needs while consequential decisions — about alliances, economic policy, the relationship to the state, the allocation of accumulated resources — concentrate in units the base does not encounter through ordinary participation. This is not secrecy but architecture, and it operates on left and right alike. The AKP case will show participation genuinely flourishing in welfare sub-organizations while macroeconomic decisions happened in party-apparatus units the base did not reach; the SPD case will show cultural sub-organizations absorbing the base's non-working life while colonial policy was decided in the Reichstag fraction; Hindutva routes identity-formation through shakha while electoral strategy runs through BJP and caste coalitions are managed through affiliates the ordinary swayamsevak never joins. The architecture itself, not any individual unit's governance form, determines what the base can see.

A further question — distinct from the architecture-level variables above but bearing on governance — concerns what each sub-organization actually delivers at its own level. The companion analysis of NGOization specifies the mechanism: Wrenn's stage model traces how a specialized sub-organization slides from grassroots collective to nonprofit status to grant dependency to mission drift, with its dimensional provision degrading from synergistic to singular to pseudo satisfier at each stage; McAlevey's advocacy/mobilizing/organizing distinction applies at the sub-organization level (an education pipeline can be organized or mobilized, a cooperative can be organized or mobilized, and the distinction matters more than the sub-organization's stated mission); Piven and Cloward document the mechanism by which organizational maintenance interests systematically diverge from the purposes the sub-organization was created to serve. Taken together, these name two properties that specialized sub-organizations can retain or lose: depth (whether the sub-organization addresses its dimensions through synergistic practice that binds its participants or through pseudo-satisfier provision that processes them), and integrity (whether its institutional interests remain aligned with the broader movement's purpose or diverge into self-preservation). Most contemporary NGOs are narrow by design, shallow by funding structure, and misaligned by the career incentives of their professional staff — which is why they provide such a striking negative case for the dimensional analysis. The left's strategic question is not whether to build specialized sub-organizations (this is unavoidable at any scale) but whether the architecture that holds them together can maintain depth and integrity at each unit while preserving legibility across units.

The historical cases vary along these axes in ways that matter. The MST approaches the problem through forced cross-membership: every núcleo de base (10-20 families) must hold a member in every sector, so specialization is prevented from producing domain separation because the same people circulate across the sub-organizational architecture. The Sangh Parivar uses ideological-organizational coordination through RSS direction, which keeps the sub-organizations aligned but produces dependence on cadre discipline rather than base-level transparency. The ateneos attempted maximum integration at the neighborhood scale — combining literacy classes, library, meeting hall, children's programs, and cultural events in single buildings tied into a dense barri-level ecosystem of sindicatos, grupos de afinidad, and rationalist schools, all collectively governed — and achieved depth at the cost of scalability beyond the neighborhood. Red Vienna professionalized its sub-organizations separately (Kunststelle, ASKO, Kinderfreunde), producing a set of professional fiefdoms each under centralized Austromarxist control but invisible to each other from the base's position — an architecture that left the base without any capacity to contest the political decisions made above the cultural apparatus. The SPD sits at the extreme of specialization without integration — the party, the unions, the alternative culture, and the cooperatives each ran on their own institutional logic, with the Reichstag fraction's strategic decisions invisible from within the singing society. The case studies will show that the sub-organizational architecture affects left and right movements alike, through different mechanisms but with structurally analogous consequences.

The fifth tool concerns reproduction conditions — what determines whether a competing solidarity can persist and reproduce its dimensional provision over time, as distinct from what makes it bind in the first place. The framework document's mediating layer specifies what determines which imperial forms a given contradiction produces; reproduction conditions are the competing solidarities analogue — the configuration of material, legal, spatial, educational, communicative, relational, and transnational conditions that determines which solidarities can maintain themselves and which cannot. Seven conditions interact:

Institutional apparatus — buildings, endowments, staff, organizational routines that create persistence across political cycles. Churches, mosques, and temples have accumulated this over centuries; the RSS built it from scratch through organizational discipline and unpaid cadre labor; the SPD's alternative culture accumulated substantial trade union funds that then became the material basis for conservative self-preservation. The asymmetry here is compounded by a deeper one: hierarchical institutional forms draw on millennia of accumulated organizational experience — people know how to build and operate them because class societies have been doing so since the Bronze Age — whereas egalitarian forms lack comparable historical depth, making them harder to design, maintain, and transmit. The difficulty is not that egalitarian organization is impossible (the biological and anthropological evidence above shows it is the older pattern) but that it was sustained under material conditions — small scale, shared subsistence, availability of exit — that class rule eliminated, and the organizational knowledge for doing it at scale under hostile conditions has to be built largely from scratch.

Legal and regulatory environment — the ongoing structural architecture of asymmetric tolerance. Tax-exempt status for religious organizations is a permanent material subsidy; association law and labor law determine what organizational forms are legally possible; the distinction between "field-clearing" as historical event (the 1980 Turkish coup) and field-maintenance as permanent condition (Taft-Hartley, right-to-work, the criminalization of secondary action) matters because the latter operates continuously rather than episodically.

Education pipelines — the mechanisms through which a competing solidarity produces its next generation of participants. Vidya Bharati enrolls 3 million students; Christian homeschool curricula reach millions more; madrasa systems transmit across generations; the Ferrer schools were the anarchist exception. Movements that control education reproduce themselves; those that don't are one generation from extinction. This connects directly to the parental authority the triple-anchoring analysis identifies: the household is where generational reproduction happens, and competing solidarities that reach the household through gendered infrastructure (the AKP's home visits, the RSS's two-circuit system) have structural access to the next generation that class organizations historically have not.

Media and communication infrastructure — control over information flows and narrative capacity. The RSS media ecosystem, Al-Manar TV, Fox News and evangelical broadcasting, the SPD's newspaper network — each provides the communicative infrastructure through which the organizing dimension is maintained and the aspirational dimension transmitted. In the digital period, algorithmic amplification and platform-based community formation create new forms of dimensional provision (recognition through followers, connection through online communities, play through gaming) that are system-serving by default: what the framework document calls mutual parasociality — connection mediated through shared content consumption rather than shared practice, producing the felt experience of belonging without the organizational capacity collective action requires. The architecture also commodifies interaction itself: even users with no aspiration to become influencers must play the attention-harvesting game — accumulating likes, reshares, followers — for their contributions to be visible at all, subordinating every communicative act to metrics that serve the platform's accumulation logic. The commodification of sociality this produces is so embedded in the medium that it operates whether or not the user intends it.

Spatial anchoring — the physical places where the competing solidarity operates. The shakha needs a park; the church needs a building; the ateneo needs a neighborhood; the commune needs a territory. Field-clearing often operates through spatial destruction or redesign: the Pla Macia scheme to demolish the Raval, suburban zoning that eliminates public space, gentrification dispersing working-class neighborhoods. Competing solidarities need places, and the availability of places is a reproduction condition the left cannot take for granted.

Competitive field position — the configuration of other actors whose behavior continuously reshapes the movement's options. Rival movements on the same terrain (the Lebanese confessional parties mutually blocking welfare reform to preserve their own organizational power; the AKP's elimination of the Gülen movement), allied movements whose support comes with conditions (the Comintern's destruction of anarchist autonomy as a condition of Soviet arms supply to the Republic; PKK/Qandil's strategic control over Rojava), and hostile actors whose targeting is selective (COINTELPRO simultaneously infiltrating every Black liberation organization; the Indian state under Modi dismantling CPI-M infrastructure while tolerating RSS expansion). No competing solidarity operates in isolation; the field is always contested, and the other actors on it reshape what any given movement can do, build, and sustain.

Transnational reach — diaspora networks, external patronage, cross-border coordination that enable a competing solidarity to survive domestic destruction. Hezbollah's Iranian patronage, the PKK's diaspora network, overseas RSS chapters, Zionism's transnational infrastructure historically — each demonstrates that domestic destruction is not necessarily fatal if the transnational base is strong enough. But external patronage is not merely a resource; it is a relationship that reshapes the movement. Iranian funding prevents Hezbollah's metabolization but determines its regional behavior — Syria intervention, hostility to Arab uprisings, demobilization of cross-sectarian strikes. Comintern support sustained the Spanish Republic but imposed the political line that destroyed the revolution. The "support that undermines what it claims to sustain" pattern is general: external patrons have their own interests, and the conditions attached to patronage reshape the movement's autonomy, strategic options, and relationship to its own base. The analytical question is not just whether external support exists but what it costs.

These conditions are asymmetrically distributed between right and left, and the asymmetry is structural rather than contingent. The right's competing solidarities typically enjoy favorable reproduction conditions — pre-existing or state-tolerated institutional apparatus, legal subsidies, education pipelines through religious institutions, established media infrastructure, spatial anchoring in churches and temples — because they serve or are compatible with class rule. The left's competing solidarities face unfavorable conditions on every dimension: institutional apparatus destroyed or dependent on the wage relation, legal environment hostile, no independent education pipelines, media infrastructure dependent on the political organization, spatial anchoring contested, competitive field position shaped by state hostility and inter-left fragmentation, and transnational reach limited or conditioned by patrons whose interests diverge from the movement's. The asymmetry is not a failure of left organizational culture; it is produced by the same class logic the essay analyzes throughout. Recognizing it as a structural condition rather than an organizational deficiency is the first step toward addressing it.

These conditions operate within national containers, and the container itself needs examination. This essay's cases are indexed to states for tractable comparison — Spanish anarchism in Spain, the SPD in Germany, Hindutva in India, the AKP in Turkey, the MST in Brazil. The indexing is analytically necessary but carries a risk of methodological nationalism: treating the state as a natural unit rather than as a frozen moment of prior class struggle, imposed (usually violently) and reproduced through ongoing enforcement. Bauer's distinction between nation and state — introduced earlier in the context of the community-of-fate concept — is the corrective. The nation is a cultural-communicative community of character; the state is a territorial-coercive apparatus; the two can come apart. Multi-national states exist (historical Austria-Hungary, contemporary India, Belgium); national movements without states exist (the Kurds, Palestinians); state apparatuses frequently rule populations whose belonging is contested. The reproduction conditions above operate at the level of the state apparatus — what its legal architecture permits, what its taxation funds, what its police enforce — while the terms of belonging discussed next often operate at the level of the cultural-communicative community, and these can diverge sharply. The SPD's universalism was genuinely universal within a German working-class community whose boundary was itself nationally defined, which is why the colonial dimension became invisible from within it. Hezbollah's organizing is contained by the Lebanese confessional architecture but its patronage relationship crosses state boundaries, producing a community whose scope does not match its state. Hindutva's project is precisely to rewrite the Indian cultural-communicative community as Hindu — using the state apparatus to redefine who counts as a tenant of the nation and who is excluded. Rojava's democratic confederalism is an explicit attempt to build belonging across state boundaries rather than within them. The state is materially real — it enforces its architecture through violence, taxation, schooling, and legal sanction — but its particular form is not natural, and the cases document what happens when movements accept the container as given, contest its boundaries from within, or attempt to build something whose scope does not match its territorial claim.

The sixth tool concerns terms of belonging — the conditions under which a competing solidarity includes, excludes, and places demands on its members. The organizing dimension determines what holds the group together and what is gated within it; terms of belonging determine who is in the group at all, on what conditions, at what cost of exit, and where the boundary of the moral community falls. This is the competing-solidarities analogue of the framework document's incorporation gradient — the same logic that sorts populations into those whose suffering matters and those whose does not, now operating within each competing solidarity to determine who receives dimensional provision and who is excluded.

Four sub-components interact. Boundary porosity: how hard is it to enter and exit the moral community? Hindu identity is ascriptive — you are born in and cannot easily leave; the barri was spatial — you belonged by living there; confessional systems make effective boundaries hereditary. Conditionality of provision: is dimensional provision unconditional within the group, or gated on conformity, belief, or behavioral markers? The early Welfare Party's coal delivery was experienced as unconditional; Red Vienna's housing benefited all residents; Hindutva gates welfare through identity. Demands on members: what conformity, labor, belief, or behavior is required to maintain standing? RSS pracharaks take lifelong vows of celibacy and poverty; the SPD's party discipline by 1914 forced even dissenters to vote for war credits; the ateneos asked only participation. Scope of the moral community: who counts as fully deserving of concern? This is where the tool connects to the meritocratic reasoning the essay has already analyzed — each competing solidarity produces its own sorting of deserving and undeserving, and the scope determines who falls outside the boundary of empathic response.

The pre-class baseline — porous boundaries, unconditional provision within the group, collectively negotiable demands, scope determined by face-to-face acquaintance — was described above. Class rule transforms each: porosity becomes controlled entry and exit; provision becomes conditional; demands become institutional requirements set from above; scope becomes categorically bounded. Competing solidarities reproduce this transformation while offering it as care — compliance and provision are structurally inseparable, which is what gives the enforcement its force. The more dimensions a solidarity addresses, the higher the cost of exit and the greater the leverage to enforce conformity. This is why the parochiality finding matters structurally: dimensional breadth and boundary coerciveness tend to covary, not because exclusion is psychologically inevitable but because the investment that deep belonging requires creates stakes that can be leveraged for conformity and policed against deviation.^[22] The question for any emancipatory project is whether collectively governed forms can hold the tension — building bonds strong enough to compete while structurally resisting parochial closure.

Crisis and the reorganization of solidarities

The solidarity landscape is not static. Crisis can reorganize it rapidly, and the reorganization can be permanent. When shared threat reaches existential intensity — war, attack, material collapse — the priority ordering of need-dimensions shifts: physical security and collective survival override the dimensions that competing solidarities normally contest, and the solidarity best positioned to address the overriding dimension captures allegiance regardless of its dimensional breadth under normal conditions. The biological threat-response compounds the effect: shared danger activates the parochial bonding mechanism described above, deepening in-group solidarity along whatever boundary is salient during the crisis. The two effects reinforce each other — crisis makes one dimension urgent, which activates the solidarity that addresses it, which triggers the biological deepening that makes the bond feel self-evidently right. This explains why wartime nationalism can override regional, religious, or class solidarities that were previously dominant: the crisis does not merely add national identity to the mix — it reorganizes the entire priority structure so that the solidarity addressing collective survival becomes primary, and the depth of threat-activated bonding makes that primacy feel natural rather than imposed.

The pivot can become permanent if institutional infrastructure rigidifies the result. Wartime mobilization that physically moves populations across regional boundaries, propaganda apparatus that normalizes the new identification, postwar institutions that make the crisis-forged solidarity experientially real in daily life — these convert a crisis-driven bond into the default solidarity through which subsequent political life is organized. The regional solidarities, religious coexistences, or class identifications that the crisis overrode may have no comparable institutional substrate to reassert themselves once the crisis passes. This is what distinguishes a temporary rally-round-the-flag effect from a durable solidarity shift: not the intensity of the crisis alone but whether the crisis-forged solidarity gets built into institutional structures that the affected population then lives within. The ANZAC myth, the post-Civil War American national identity, the post-Reconquista Iberian Christian solidarity enforced by the Inquisition — each was forged through crisis and rigidified through institutions that prevented reversion. At the individual level, the same mechanism explains why political pivots during crises (intellectuals who suddenly discover national or civilizational loyalty under threat) rarely reverse: the interpretive framework that crystallizes during the crisis reorganizes prior commitments rather than supplementing them, and the biological depth of the bonding makes the new framework feel more real than what it replaced.

The implication for the case studies that follow is that the dimensional coverage of competing solidarities — which of the thirteen dimensions they address, at what depth — is not a fixed property but varies with conditions. A solidarity that addresses only identity and connection/belonging under normal conditions can suddenly become dimensionally dominant during a crisis by capturing the protection dimension. And if it then builds institutional infrastructure during the crisis window, it can maintain that dominance afterward — not because it still addresses protection but because the institutional substrate carries the bond forward into conditions where the original crisis no longer operates. The competing solidarities landscape is shaped by the institutional separations class rule produces and rigidifies, but it is also reshaped by crises that reorganize which separations matter most — and by the institutional responses to those crises that determine whether the reorganization persists.

The 1917 October Revolution illustrates the limiting case: under conditions of generalized state failure, logistical breakdown, and mass military desertion, a narrowly material appeal — land and bread — was sufficient to capture allegiance because the crisis had collapsed every other competing solidarity's provision simultaneously. But this does not generalize. Most contemporary states do not fail this comprehensively, and those that do (Somalia, Libya, parts of Syria) tend to be precisely the ones whose populations have no bargaining power vis-à-vis the international institutional arrangements — the fiscal rules, treaty constraints, and creditor hierarchies the companion framework analyzes — that constrain what any successor formation can deliver. The crisis that makes a narrow appeal sufficient is the same crisis that destroys the conditions under which the resulting formation could build dimensional breadth.

Case studies: right-wing solidarities in practice

With the analytical toolkit now complete, the following cases examine how competing solidarities actually operate.

This section begins with right-wing movements, and the choice is deliberate. The left's habitual approach is to study movements it admires — the Panthers, the ateneos, the early Soviets — and derive lessons from their partial successes. These movements are examined in the left cases section below, and they provide genuine evidence that collectively governed forms of social life can work. But studying only movements we sympathize with produces a systematic blind spot: it tells us what we want to build without telling us what we're competing against — and the competition is winning. If competing solidarities outcompete class solidarity because they address more of what people need, then understanding how they do it requires studying the movements that are actually succeeding at dimensional breadth, not the ones we wish had succeeded. The right builds organizations that address identity, connection/belonging, order/harmony, recognition, subsistence, protection, efficacy/power-to, mourning/celebration, and play simultaneously — and it does so at scale, durably, across radically different cultural contexts. Understanding the organizational mechanisms through which it achieves this is a precondition for building left alternatives that can outcompete it. Studying only our own tradition's experiments is the organizational equivalent of the disciplinary fragmentation the framework critiques: it produces genuine expertise about what we do while ensuring we never understand what we're up against.

A note on scope: the case studies that follow — right-wing here, left in the next section — are not intended as exhaustive accounts of any movement. Each case inevitably underplays or ignores aspects, both positive and negative, that a fuller treatment would address. The aim is to illustrate the analytical toolkit developed above and show what it makes visible: which structural dynamics, trade-offs, and failure modes become legible when competing solidarities are analyzed through the dimensional framework and the six tools. Readers familiar with any particular movement will find omissions; the question is whether the framework illuminates dynamics that other approaches obscure.

Each case is analyzed through the same dimensions: dimensional breadth and depth, class divergence between leadership and base, gendered infrastructure, field-clearing conditions, terms of belonging, reproduction conditions, and the movement's relationship to metabolization and class capture.

Hindutva: dimensional comprehensiveness and the pracharak system

The Hindutva movement (Andersen and Damle 2018; Hansen 1999; Chatterji, Hansen, and Jaffrelot 2019; Bacchetta 2004; Sarkar and Butalia 1995; Vanaik 1997; Jaffrelot 2003) illustrates a competing solidarity of extensive dimensional breadth — and one whose internal class dynamics, gendered infrastructure, and relationship to the left's failure are documented across eight sources.

The context is post-independence India's unresolved tensions. The Nehruvian settlement combined parliamentary democracy with a secularist state framework, Congress Party dominance, a mixed economy with substantial public-sector employment, and a constitutional commitment to affirmative action (reservations) for Scheduled Castes and Tribes — but without confronting the caste system's structural reproduction or the Hindu-Muslim communal divide that partition had deepened. The RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), founded in 1925 by K.B. Hedgewar, was banned after a member assassinated Gandhi in 1948 but rehabilitated within two years, and spent the following decades building organizational infrastructure outside the state — the shakha (daily meeting) system, the pracharak (full-time cadre) network, and a growing ecosystem of affiliated organizations — while Congress dominated formal politics. The BJP, the RSS's electoral arm, remained marginal until the late 1980s; what transformed its fortunes was the Mandal/Mandir dynamic described below, which exposed the fault line between caste-based redistribution and Hindu-unity mobilization that the Nehruvian settlement had papered over.

The RSS and its affiliated organizations (Sangh Parivar) — 36+ full affiliates covering politics (BJP), trade unions (BMS), students (ABVP), farmers (BKS), education (Vidya Bharati, India's largest private school system with 3 million students), welfare (Seva Bharati), and dozens more — address nearly every need dimension through a distributed ecosystem — subsistence and protection through Seva Bharati and BJP governance, connection/belonging and recognition through the shakha system (57,000 daily meetings where pracharaks know members' names and family situations), understanding through Vidya Bharati schools, participation through volunteering and seva work, play through shakha games and physical competitions, creation through cultural production, identity as the organizing dimension, autonomy/freedom constrained by hierarchical governance, order/harmony through the civilizational narrative (Hansen documents middle-class residents dreaming of "a clean sweep, an imposition of an authoritarian moral order"), efficacy/power-to through the pracharak advancement system (a formalized status game with clear rules and advancement markers), and mourning/celebration through Hindu festivals organized as movement events and civilizational mourning for Mughal destruction and colonial humiliation.

The material infrastructure was built from scratch: the RSS began with daily meetings in public parks and rented rooms, funded entirely through member dues and the unpaid labor of pracharaks (who take lifelong vows of celibacy and poverty, living in movement housing). The ecosystem has no equivalent of the church endowment or the waqf — its infrastructure depends on organizational discipline and mass participation rather than accumulated wealth. What it has instead is state tolerance (and under BJP governance, active state support), a Hindu cultural substrate — temples, festivals, pilgrimage networks — that provides dimensional raw material even though the organizational forms are entirely self-constructed, and reproduction conditions the left cannot match: Vidya Bharati's school system (3 million students) functions as an education pipeline producing the next generation of participants; overseas RSS chapters in the US, UK, and elsewhere provide transnational reach and diaspora funding; and a media ecosystem (newspapers, television, social media networks) maintains the civilizational narrative continuously. The ecosystem's coherence is maintained through the pracharak system: approximately 6,000 full-time cadres, trained through a three-year program, who occupy top management positions across all affiliates. This is the Sangh Parivar's answer to the sub-organizational architecture problem: high specialization across 36+ affiliates is integrated through shared cadre rather than shared membership. A swayamsevak who participates in the shakha does not ordinarily participate in BJP strategy, Vidya Bharati curriculum decisions, or VHP campaign planning — those happen in affiliates run by the same pracharak layer. Legibility across affiliates exists at the cadre level and is systematically withheld from the base. The governance is hierarchical: pracharaks are appointed, not elected; the movement offers multidimensional need-fulfillment under centralized control rather than collective governance, and the architecture itself is what produces the class divergence the case study will later document (BJP economic policy serving corporate interests while the shakha base believes the movement serves them).

The Mandal/Mandir dynamic illustrates the point concretely. In 1990, V.P. Singh's government implemented the Mandal Commission's recommendation to reserve 27% of central government jobs for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) — the large, heterogeneous bloc of castes below the upper castes but above the Dalits (formerly "untouchables"), comprising roughly half the population but historically excluded from the administrative positions upper castes monopolized. This was affirmative action on a scale that threatened to permanently break upper-caste dominance over state employment. One month later, the BJP launched Advani's Rath Yatra — a cross-country chariot procession to Ayodhya demanding a Hindu temple on the site of a mosque — offering Hindu religious solidarity as an alternative axis designed to override the caste fractures Mandal had exposed. Mandal offered OBCs something real and historically denied: government jobs, which in India carry not only a salary but pension, housing, social standing, and a degree of security the informal economy cannot provide. It addressed subsistence, recognition (being counted, being represented by people from your own community rather than for you by upper-caste administrators), and autonomy/freedom. Lower-caste parties like the BSP went further — Kanshi Ram's organizational work gave Dalits a political vehicle that treated their experience as the starting point rather than as a problem to be managed. But Mandal did not offer community belonging that crossed caste lines, a civilizational narrative that made daily life meaningful, protection against an external threat, or a felt sense of moral-social order. It organized solidarity along caste lines — which meant it deepened the very fragmentation that prevented horizontal class solidarity.

The Rath Yatra offered precisely what Mandal did not. The chariot procession — thousands of kilometers, village after village, crowds gathering to touch the chariot and offer worship — was not a policy proposal. It was a ritual enactment of Hindu unity: the experience of belonging to a civilizational community that transcended caste, that had been humiliated by Mughal conquest and British colonialism, and that was now reclaiming its rightful place. It addressed identity, connection/belonging, order/harmony, mourning/celebration (the procession itself was a mourning-and-renewal ritual for a violated civilization), and play (the festive, carnivalesque atmosphere of the yatra). It did not address subsistence at all — and it did not need to, because the dimensions it offered were the ones Mandal could not reach.

Caste itself functions as a competing solidarity through what Ambedkar called "graded inequality" — each caste has one below it, preventing horizontal class solidarity. The BJP's response to the Mandal challenge was not to contest redistribution directly but to offer an alternative axis of solidarity that made caste redistribution feel like a betrayal of the larger community. Jaffrelot calls this "graded social engineering": the deliberate distribution of tickets and positions to lower-caste candidates while maintaining upper-caste strategic control — a pseudo-satisfier for recognition that screens material deprivation behind symbolic inclusion. Under Modi, the pattern intensified. The recognition dimension was elaborated with care: a Dalit president (Ram Nath Kovind), Modi's own OBC origins foregrounded in every campaign, Ambedkar — the Dalit intellectual who drafted India's constitution and converted to Buddhism precisely to escape Hinduism's caste hierarchy — appropriated and renamed "Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar" to inscribe him within the Hindu fold, his statues garlanded by BJP leaders who oppose everything he stood for. Meanwhile, the material dimension moved in the opposite direction. Scheduled caste budget allocation stood at 7% — less than half the 16.6% their population share would require. Privatization of public-sector enterprises automatically eliminated the reservations that applied only to government employment — each privatization quietly deleting the very positions Mandal had opened. Upper-caste violence against Dalits who voted BJP intensified after elections: the alliances that won votes shattered once they had served their purpose, and atrocity rates were highest in BJP-governed states. The pattern is precise: the competing solidarity provides synergistic satisfiers for identity, belonging, order, and civilizational meaning — each reinforcing the others — while offering only pseudo-satisfiers for recognition (symbolic inclusion without material redistribution) and withholding subsistence, autonomy, and protection from the violence its own coalition produces. The synergistic dimensions are the ones that bind; the pseudo and withheld dimensions are the ones that would require redistribution.

The terms of belonging make the mechanism precise. Boundary porosity is asymmetric: entry into the Hindu moral community is ascriptive (you are born Hindu) and the movement actively prevents exit — Ambedkar's conversion to Buddhism, the paradigmatic act of leaving, is being ideologically reversed by re-inscribing him as Hindu. Conditionality of provision operates through caste: upper castes receive strategic control, OBCs receive symbolic recognition, Dalits receive appropriation of their icons — the same provision gated differently by position in the hierarchy. Demands escalate under Modi: vegetarianism imposed through beef bans, interfaith marriage policed through "love jihad" laws, cultural conformity enforced through vigilante violence the state tolerates. The scope of the moral community is telling: Muslims are categorically outside — violence against them generates no political cost within the movement — while Dalits are nominally inside but positioned so that the terms of their inclusion (accept Hindu unity, defer caste grievance) require them to abandon the one axis of solidarity that would address their material condition.

The movement's gendered infrastructure operates through two distinct circuits serving different class constituencies. The upper-caste/middle-class circuit (Rashtra Sevika Samiti, BJP Mahila Morcha, VHP women's sections) provides ideological training, martial exercises, and what Hansen calls "controlled emancipation" — women gaining visibility within the movement's institutional confines by embodying patriarchal norms. Bacchetta documents the pracharika option ("married to the Nation, not to any man") as an alternative life trajectory. The lower-class/lower-caste circuit (Shiv Sena Mahila Aghadi, Durga Vahini) provides material welfare — crèches, income generation programs, medical aid, and "rough justice" for domestic grievances — through 221 slum-based shakhas. Both circuits penetrate the household, though through different mechanisms: the lower-caste circuit through welfare delivery (the AKP home-visit analogue), the Samiti through systematic relationship cultivation — "Adhyapikas from the shakha go over regularly to discuss a member's behaviour and prospects with her relatives" (Sarkar). Marriage functions as an expansion mechanism: when a Samiti member marries into a non-RSS family, senior shakha members visit the in-laws, and the married woman "acts as a pivot within a new domestic set up, a new neighbourhood." The boundary is permeable outward through kinship, with each marriage a vector for organizational expansion.

The "controlled emancipation" extends further than the essay's other right-wing cases: women participate directly in communal violence — as rioters, looters, blockers of fire engines, operators of "whisper and rumour campaigns" during pogroms (Sarkar). This complicates the patriarchal-bargain framing: the emancipation includes emancipation to commit communal violence, which simultaneously deepens demands on members (participation in violence becomes expected) and makes exit morally costly through complicity. The pattern illustrates a broader point: patriarchy and ethnic supremacism coexist comfortably, with the latter offering the otherwise marginalized a share in the oppression of others — including of other women, with whom they need feel no solidarity once the ethnic boundary has been made primary. The movement has also systematically co-opted issues first raised by the feminist movement — rape, dowry, domestic violence, the Uniform Civil Code — using them as recruitment tools while redirecting them toward communal ends. The BJP instrumentalized Muslim women's rights (triple talaq) to advance Hindu nationalist control over Muslim personal law, producing an appearance of concern for women that masks structural commutativity with patriarchy: the Samiti leader, when asked about mediating domestic disputes, states "we do not take the woman's side, we are neutral. We will tell the woman that she must do everything to preserve her home life."

But the Hindutva movement's dimensional breadth, however impressive, did not win in open competition with a left alternative. The "field cleared" question has a specific answer for India: the left failed to contest the terrain through five mechanisms Vanaik identifies — regional confinement (CPM locked into three states), electoralist reformism (twenty years of governance pushing toward co-optation), caste-blindness (the left "never led major anti-upper-caste movements"), total failure to counter-mobilize over Ayodhya, and a structural asymmetry (the Sangh Combine maintains a division of labor between RSS cultural work and BJP electoral politics the left cannot replicate). Hansen confirms that where left organizational infrastructure persists, Hindutva penetration is blocked: in Talasari taluka where CPI-M and NGOs have solid backing, VHP progress "has been slow." (The Indian state under Modi is now actively dismantling the remaining CPI-M organizational infrastructure — confirming that the counterfactual threat is taken seriously: where the left holds, the right will use state coercion to clear the field.) The field was cleared not by state violence (as in Turkey) or anti-left repression (as in the US) but by Congress's institutional hollowing-out and the left's own analytical failures — a different mechanism producing the same structural outcome.

What Hindutva is doing to the Indian cultural-communicative community is worth naming in the terms Bauer introduced. India is by construction a multi-national state — multiple languages, religions, regional cultures, and historically distinct populations coexisting within a federal architecture that was designed (on paper) to accommodate them. Hindutva's long-term work is to rewrite the Indian community of character as Hindu, narrowing the scope of cultural belonging while retaining the territorial scope of the state apparatus. Muslims (and Christians, Sikhs, and Dalits to varying degrees) are being produced as a competing community of fate through the exclusion — persecution, communal violence, administrative invisibilization, the CAA/NRC machinery, the removal from state positions the terms-of-belonging discussion above documented — rather than discovered as one that pre-existed. Bauer's Jewish case is the precedent he himself could not fully see: communities of fate can be produced by the dominant nation's own exclusionary practice, which means Hindutva is simultaneously the Hindu community's and the Indian Muslim community's co-producer. The sharper the exclusion becomes, the more the community of fate it creates acquires the density of shared institutional experience (segregated neighborhoods, shared legal disability, shared vulnerability to mob violence, shared mourning rituals) that Bauer identifies as the substance of belonging. The scope Hindutva is trying to narrow is being widened, in the wrong direction, by its own methods.

Under Modi, the RSS-BJP relationship operates as a power-sharing pact: Modi controls economic/foreign/security policy; the RSS controls the social/cultural/educational agenda. The pracharak system maintains organizational autonomy, but when RSS affiliates (BMS, SJM, BKS) opposed pro-corporate policies, the RSS issued a diktat: affiliates could voice disagreement but could not organize campaigns or mobilize against BJP policy. The diktat is the organizational mechanism through which commutativity with neoliberal class reproduction is enforced: the movement produces non-commutative experience on the dimensions the base participates for (identity, belonging, order, mourning) while ensuring that the class-reproduction dimension converges with capital's requirements. Hansen documents the internal tension this produces as the conflict between "car sevaks" (pragmatic, pro-capitalist, committed to consumer modernity) and "kar sevaks" (austere, ideologically pure, more socially conscientious) — but both wings are commutative with the dominant social logic on the axis that matters for capital, because the caste hierarchy through which the movement operates reproduces the class relation in modernized form: "the hierarchy of differences has been transformed from ritual purity toward civic conduct, Oxford degrees, or NRI status" (Hansen). The RSS cannot mobilize its own base against neoliberal policies without destabilizing the arrangement — and "Modi's failure would be construed as its own failure."

What the base composition makes visible and invisible matters here. The VHP organized a major yatra converging on the Ambedkar memorial in Nagpur; "the final congregation turned out to be a small unenthusiastic crowd who met with hostility and apprehension from bystanders" — the movement's upper-caste composition rendered it literally unable to speak a language Dalits found meaningful at their own hero's memorial (Hansen). The left's caste-blindness — already identified in Vanaik's account of the field being cleared — is a composition failure of the same kind: a left composed primarily of upper-caste cadre could not see caste as a mobilizing axis in its own right. Under Modi, this epistemic logic has been weaponized: Muslim officers in the Indian Police Service fell to 2.5%; the BJP won 71 of 80 UP seats with zero Muslim MPs; in 2015, the government stopped publishing data on Muslim representation in police. Removing Muslims from governance positions ensures that Muslim experience becomes invisible to the state apparatus — designed unintelligibility, not accidental ignorance.

The movement's reproduction conditions extend beyond what the essay has so far specified. Communal violence functions as a reproduction mechanism in its own right: Hansen documents that riots "tend to (re-)produce their own cause" — creating self-perpetuating "riot systems" that harden communal boundaries and generate the identities they claim to defend. Each cycle of violence deepens the terms of belonging through complicity, making exit morally costly. Beyond Vidya Bharati's 3 million students, the movement uses state power to capture public education: NCERT textbooks under Modi removed evidence for beef eating in ancient India and any reference to discrimination within the caste system — reproduction through the public education system, not just the movement's own pipeline. Vanaik adds a durability finding: Hindutva is "more deep-rooted than fascism, more enduring and more difficult to completely or comprehensively destroy" because its roots are in civil society rather than in the state — "the ultimate decay or defeat of the Hindu state would not have the same decisively damaging effect on Hindu communalism as the ultimate decay or defeat of the fascist state has on the forces of fascism." The competitive field position is structurally more durable than any fascist movement's.

The aspirational dimension operates not only domestically but geopolitically. Hansen identifies the deepest motivating force as "to be respected as the 'civilizational other' of the West" — the nuclear tests, the linking of the Berlin Wall's fall to the Ayodhya campaign, the RSS leader's lament ("Beggars, that is what we have been reduced to"). The aspiration is not merely Hindu Rashtra but India's recognition as a civilizational equal on the world stage — a response to India's global peripherality that connects the domestic competing solidarity to the international system. The scalar question operates distinctly across different target populations: in Kashmir through military occupation under AFSPA (internal colonization), in the Northeast through strategic cultural absorption ("Bharat Mata in tribal dress"), in Adivasi areas through Hinduization combined with resource expropriation (ghar wapasi + dispossession of forest lands for mining). The same competing solidarity produces radically different local configurations depending on the target population's position on the incorporation gradient.

The AKP: metabolization of a competing solidarity

The Turkish case (White 2002; Tuğal 2009, 2016) documents the full lifecycle of a competing solidarity: grassroots mobilization → absorption into system-serving forms → authoritarian degeneration. Understanding why the Islamist movement became the dominant competing solidarity requires understanding what it replaced and the conditions that made its rise possible.

The Turkish Republic was founded on laicist principles: the state controlled religion through the Diyanet (Directorate of Religious Affairs), imposing a top-down secularism in which the Kemalist secular elite monopolized the definition of modernity. From the 1950s onward, massive rural-to-urban migration produced gecekondu (squatter) neighborhoods on the periphery of Istanbul, Ankara, and other cities — populations the secular state could not incorporate and did not try to serve. By the 1970s, Turkey had a significant urban left: labor unions (DISK, the left labor federation), student movements, revolutionary organizations, and a left presence embedded in working-class neighborhoods. Three military interventions (1960, 1971, 1980) targeted the left with escalating severity. The 1980 coup was decisive: 650,000 detained, 230,000 tried, all unions dissolved, DISK shut down and its leaders imprisoned, political parties banned. The left's organizational infrastructure was physically destroyed.

But the coup did more than clear the field — it actively constructed the reproduction conditions for the right. The military junta adopted the "Turkish-Islamic synthesis" — an ideology developed by the Aydınlar Ocağı (Intellectuals' Hearth), a right-wing nationalist think tank — as official state doctrine, promoting Sunni Islam as social glue against both leftism and Kurdish separatism. The junta deliberately expanded the Imam Hatip (preacher-training) school system as an education pipeline and made religious education compulsory. Imam Hatip graduates became the cadre base for the Islamist movement. Simultaneously, prime minister Turgut Özal's IMF-driven neoliberal restructuring from 1983 onward dismantled public provision: real wages declined continuously, unemployment rose from 5% to 18%, the 1994 austerity program halved purchasing power overnight, and the state abandoned the squatter populations it had drawn to the cities under earlier import-substitution industrialization. The center-left parties (CHP, SHP, DSP) had retreated into secularist identity politics; the center-right (ANAP, DYP) was corrupt and discredited. The only organizational force positioned to address the needs of the abandoned urban poor was the Islamist movement — Erbakan's successive parties (MNP → MSP → RP → FP), operating through existing mosque networks, charitable endowments, and the very Imam Hatip infrastructure the post-coup state had built. The Islamist movement occupied a field that state violence had cleared and state policy had prepared.

What the Islamist movement built on that cleared field, in Istanbul's peripheral neighborhoods, was a competing solidarity organized through the tripartite institutional complex of party, welfare foundation (vakıf), and municipality. Each unit was specialized — the party handled electoral politics, the vakıf delivered welfare, the municipality administered services once won — and integration operated through shared personnel and the imece-based social fabric of peripheral neighborhoods, producing legibility at the neighborhood level (participants saw the same people across contexts) while strategic decisions about macroeconomic policy fell outside any unit the base participated in. The material infrastructure was not built from scratch: the movement operated through existing mosque networks — physical spaces, communal routines, and a ritual calendar that predated the political organization — and funded its welfare provision through the vakıf system (Islamic charitable endowments with independent revenue) and municipal budgets once it won local elections. The Islamists had buildings, funding streams, and a cultural substrate that survived the coup because the state destroyed class-based organizations while leaving religious infrastructure intact.

White's ethnography of the home-visit system specifies concretely how recognition operates organizationally. The visiting activist did not arrive as a representative of an institution — she arrived as a neighbor, embedded in networks of reciprocal obligation that White identifies with the traditional imece (open-ended mutual aid, as when villagers help one another at harvest). She identified family needs personally, delivered assistance discreetly ("so as not to embarrass the recipient"), and created ongoing relationships in which the recipient was known rather than processed.

The party's surveillance records were so detailed — "including such details as blood group, that the police reportedly called Welfare Party headquarters to ask for possible blood donor matches after accidents" — that the organizational infrastructure doubled as a recognition infrastructure: the party saw you as a specific person in a way the state never did. Through the same organizational forms, the movement addressed subsistence (welfare foundations, municipal services the central state refused to provide after Özal's neoliberal restructuring), connection/belonging (neighborhood cells, communal meals, imece-based reciprocity), identity and order/harmony (the Islamic moral community as coherent cosmos), participation (women's commissions, youth foundation, party branches), efficacy/power-to (organizational advancement through the tripartite complex), and mourning/celebration (Islamic ritual infrastructure). Women activists operating through a patriarchal bargain — veiling as the condition for public participation — gave the movement access to the household, the site of social reproduction that class organizations structurally could not reach. The gendered organizational form was constitutive of the movement's dimensional breadth, not supplementary to it.

The contrast with the secularist Women's Center operating in the same neighborhood is instructive. Middle-class Kemalist activists offered practical services but treated local women as objects of enlightenment requiring extraction from their backward environment — addressing understanding while destroying recognition. The secularists offered participation in a framework that denied recognition; the Islamists offered recognition through a framework that constrained autonomy. The composition-determines-intelligibility mechanism is sharp here: the secularist activists' class composition (middle-class, university-educated) determined what they could see — they could not see local women as specific persons deserving acknowledgment because their composition did not produce that knowledge. The Islamist activists, drawn from the same neighborhoods, could see because their composition overlapped with the population they served. A crucial distinction must be registered: this comparison is between the Islamist movement and Kemalist secularism, not the organized left. The actual left — labor unions, revolutionary organizations — was not present to compete because the 1980 coup had destroyed it. The secular Women's Center was not a left organization; it was a vehicle of the Kemalist civilizing mission. The failure of Kemalist secularism to compete tells us about the limits of paternalist modernization, not about the limits of class solidarity.

Under the Welfare Party (RP), this infrastructure constituted a genuine grassroots challenge to the secular-capitalist order: the movement built parallel institutions — religious courts replacing distant secular ones, municipal services replacing absent state provision, a moral economy replacing market individualism — that functioned as dual power structures in the neighborhoods the state had abandoned. The AKP's rise to power metabolized this challenge — what Tuğal calls "passive revolution." The welfare-dismantlement cycle drove the process: neoliberal restructuring dismantled public provision → the Islamist movement's welfare infrastructure addressed the dimensions the state had abandoned → the AKP came to power through this infrastructure → the AKP in power deepened the restructuring that had produced the dismantlement.

The metabolization operated not primarily through top-down institutional capture but through the transformation of what the movement's organizational forms meant. Tuğal's ethnography of Sultanbeyli traces this at the neighborhood level. Under the Welfare Party, provision was experienced as genuinely pious — the activist delivering coal did so because Islam required it, and the recipient experienced the delivery as an expression of shared moral community. Under the AKP, the same organizational forms were retained but their content transformed: radical Islamist cadres became neoliberal administrators, the movement's parallel welfare institutions were folded into state functions, and the collective imaginary was reworked so that Islamic piety and market discipline became mutually reinforcing. Traditional Islam's emphasis on patience (sabır) was rearticulated from quiet rejection of the economic order to patient acceptance of it, market cycles were reframed as nasip (fate/God's portion), and "sanctified neoliberalism" produced a coherent moral cosmos in which market discipline appeared as divine order. The movement's satisfiers shifted from authentic to instrumental — still addressing identity, connection/belonging, and order/harmony, but now in service of the Turkish bourgeoisie rather than of the moral community the base had participated for. The mechanism is a commutativity shift: the RP-period movement was partially non-commutative — its "Just Order" framing was genuinely anti-capitalist, and membership produced a relationship to the economy (moral critique, rejection of market discipline) that diverged from the dominant social logic. Under the AKP, membership converged with that logic on the economic dimension: the informal-sector workers in Sultanbeyli who constantly shifted between wage labor and self-employment experienced an "imaginary commonality between employer and employee that blocked class consciousness" (Tuğal), reinforced by Islamic contentment (kanaatkarlik) and patronage networks that channeled complaints upward rather than outward. The movement was non-commutative on identity and community and commutative on economics — which is the structure through which metabolization operated. The movement's rhetoric systematically avoided class terminology — no alt tabaka (lower class) or işçi sınıfı (working class), only fakir (poor) and mağdur kesim (victim sector) — actively suppressing the conceptual tools needed to see class exploitation (White). Domain separation screened the class-serving character of economic policy from the dimensions the base experienced daily. The AKP weaponized welfare restructuring itself: it mobilized informal workers against formal-sector "privileges," dismantling corporatist benefits (health care, pensions tied to formal employment) while redirecting provision toward the informal poor — converting welfare restructuring into a class alliance between capital and the subproletariat against the traditional working class.

The cycle's logic is general: only organizations with existing dimensional breadth can fill what the state abandons, and hierarchical governance allows the leadership to redirect the infrastructure once in power — so that the movement that filled the gap the state created becomes the state and widens it further.

The terms of belonging track the metabolization trajectory. Under the Welfare Party, boundaries were porous (the home-visit system reached anyone in the neighborhood regardless of piety level), provision was experienced as unconditional (imece-based, discretely delivered), demands were light (the patriarchal bargain was the main cost), and the scope of the moral community was broad — coextensive with the neighborhood. Under the AKP, each tightened: boundaries hardened around political loyalty, provision became conditional on conformity, demands escalated (from piety to market discipline to political allegiance), and the scope narrowed progressively — Alevis, Kurds, secularists, Gezi protesters pushed out. But the tightening is not unidirectional — the terms are instrumentally adjusted in lockstep with coalition needs. During the Kurdish peace process (2011-2015), Diyanet sermons promoted Islamic brotherhood across ethnic lines; after the process collapsed, inclusive rhetoric vanished overnight and was replaced by pure Sunni-nationalist framing (Yilmaz and Albayrak). The Alevi exclusion shows what "narrowed scope" means experientially: the 2016 salâ mobilization generated not solidarity but anticipatory terror for Alevis — an Arab Alevi woman feared it "could be an 'Islamist takeover,'" recalling the 1993 Sivas massacre where a Sunni mob killed 37 Alevi intellectuals (Kocamaner). The same infrastructure that generated collective agency for Sunni Muslims generated existential threat for those outside the moral community — and Alevis pay for the Diyanet through general taxation regardless of religious affiliation.

A complicating finding: the internal democratization that the reformist wing pursued in the late 1990s — internal balloting, term limits, more egalitarian structures — was itself the vehicle of metabolization. The base got internal democracy; the leadership got neoliberal policy autonomy. This is the organizational-legibility problem operating at full scale. The tripartite party-vakıf-municipality structure routed participation toward the units that addressed the base's experienced needs — welfare delivery through the vakıf, local services through the municipality, community belonging through the neighborhood cells — while macroeconomic policy was set at the party-government level, a unit the welfare recipient and the neighborhood-cell participant never encountered through their participation. Democratization was genuine within each unit's remit, which is precisely what made the architecture effective: the base could contest decisions about welfare delivery, municipal services, and community organization, while the movement's overall economic orientation — serving capital fractions whose interests diverged from the base's — fell outside any unit's participatory scope. This is the competing-solidarities analogue of what the framework document calls devolution: genuine democratic responsiveness channeled toward domains where consequential decisions have already been made elsewhere. Organized governance does not automatically resist metabolization — it can facilitate it when the organizational division of labor screens the class-serving dimension from the dimensions the base participates for.

But the metabolization was not only a product of internal organizational dynamics. The institutional architecture constrained what any Turkish government could deliver economically: Maastricht-style fiscal rules, central bank independence, IMF conditionality, and the February 2001 financial crisis (caused by IMF-imposed deregulation) meant that neoliberal policy was not merely the AKP's preference but the only option the institutional ratchet made available. The framework document calls this "encasement" — the locking of class-serving configurations into institutional structures that remove decisions from democratic contestation entirely. The AKP's metabolization must therefore be read as jointly produced: internal organizational dynamics (professionalization, domain separation, the democratization-as-metabolization mechanism) operating within external institutional constraints (the ratchet) that made alternative economic policy structurally unavailable regardless of the movement's commitments. The movement did not merely "sell out"; the institutional architecture ensured that even genuine commitment to redistribution could not be translated into policy. This is form-switching as systemic agency: the system does not passively absorb movements but actively reconfigures its extraction architecture to incorporate, redirect, or neutralize challenges — and the ratchet ensures that once the reconfiguration is institutionalized, reversal through normal democratic processes is blocked.

The organizing dimension shifted not twice but three times. Under the Welfare Party, subsistence (welfare provision) organized the movement. Under the early AKP, identity (sanctified neoliberalism, the pious modern) took over. After 2013, when consent-based passive revolution failed — the Gezi uprising exposing its limits — the organizing dimension shifted to protection (securitization): the fitna vocabulary, the Schmittian friend/enemy distinction explicitly invoked by AKP strategists in leaked conversations ("President Erdogan acts along the lines of Carl Schmitt"; "We have religionised our struggle — when opponents attack us, they no longer attack only us, but also attack our religion and sacred values"), the permanent threat frame that makes political opposition ontologically impermissible. This is form-switching in reverse: when legitimation through dimensional provision broke down, the fractions controlling the state apparatus turned to organized coercion, and the organizing dimension shifted from identity (who we are) to protection (who threatens us).

The AKP's scalar architecture deserves specific attention because no left case achieves anything comparable. The movement operated at three scales simultaneously: locally through the home-visit system and neighborhood cells (recognition, connection/belonging), nationally through the Diyanet's centrally written Friday sermons broadcast in 90,000 mosques (order/harmony, identity), and transnationally through the Diyanet's operations in 36 countries with 61 branches and publications in 28 languages (Yilmaz and Albayrak). Neither level could do what the others did — the grassroots could not produce a national moral cosmos; the Diyanet could not make individual people feel seen — but together they covered from the individual household to the diaspora. The Diyanet itself is a form-switching institution of extraordinary resilience: "like a genie in a bottle, it serves the party which holds the magic lamp" (Kocamaner). The same 90,000 mosques transmitted Kemalist nationalism under one government, liberal-democratic Islam under another, and civilizationist authoritarianism under a third — content changing, infrastructure persisting. Its budget escalated from 13 billion TL in 2021 to 130 billion projected for 2025, exceeding the combined budgets of several ministries, and its 107,000 employees make it one of the largest employers in the Turkish state — publicly funded reproduction infrastructure for a competing solidarity, financed through general taxation.

The Turkish model was also a regional hegemonic project — the US promoted Turkey as the template for the Muslim world after the Iraq War demonstrated that direct military intervention could not stabilize the region. The model's collapse was driven by regional events (the Arab revolts, the Egyptian Brotherhood's failed imitation) as much as by domestic contradictions — the domestic competing solidarity was embedded in a regional and global power configuration, and shifts at that scale destroyed the consent-based model. The 2016 coup night demonstrated what the infrastructure could do under crisis conditions: the mosque loudspeaker network — an "impinging" medium that cannot be individually turned off, unlike television or mobile phones which the coup plotters had seized — mobilized millions through the salâ (prayer call), activating affective dispositions cultivated through decades of routine operation (Kocamaner). A secular alert system would have conveyed information; the salâ conveyed information through a medium that simultaneously activated identity, belonging, mourning/celebration, and order/harmony. The crisis reorganization worked because the non-protection dimensions were already loaded into the medium.

Hezbollah: non-metabolized but system-serving

The Lebanese case (Deeb 2006; Norton 2014; A. Daher 2019; J. Daher 2016; Cammett 2014) provides the counter-case to the AKP: a dimensionally comprehensive competing solidarity that has not been absorbed into neoliberal governance, and whose mourning/celebration and order/harmony dimensions are analytically distinctive because the sources allow us to see most clearly how they operate as organizational functions rather than as cultural background. Understanding the case requires understanding the institutional architecture that produced it.

Lebanon's confessional system was established under the French Mandate (1920-43) and formalized in the 1943 National Pact, which allocated state positions by religious sect: the president must be Maronite Christian, the prime minister Sunni Muslim, the speaker of parliament Shi'a Muslim. The system was designed to prevent any single community from dominating — and, as a structural consequence, to prevent cross-sectarian class politics. The state is deliberately weak in welfare provision because strong public services would undermine the confessional parties' organizational base: each sect maintains its own welfare, educational, and social infrastructure, and each has a structural interest in the state's continued weakness. The Shi'a community — historically Lebanon's poorest and most marginalized, concentrated in the south and the Bekaa Valley — was allocated the least powerful position in the confessional hierarchy. The 1975-90 civil war destroyed what remained of cross-sectarian political life; the Taif Accord that ended it preserved the confessional architecture while slightly rebalancing power. Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon from 1978 onward channeled Shi'a mobilization into resistance rather than class struggle, and the Iranian revolution of 1979 provided both an ideological model and a material patron. The Lebanese left — the Lebanese Communist Party, Palestinian-aligned organizations, secular pan-Arabist movements — was not destroyed by a single coup (as in Turkey) but structurally excluded by an institutional architecture that makes cross-sectarian solidarity prohibitively costly. All major confessional parties — not only Hezbollah — provide the welfare the deliberately weak state withholds, and all actively block welfare reform to protect their organizational power. The welfare-replacement mechanism is systemic: the confessional system produces the gaps in provision that confessional organizations then fill under their own hierarchical governance, and each party has a structural interest in maintaining the state's weakness.

Within this confessional landscape, Hezbollah built the largest and most institutionally dense organizational ecosystem among the Lebanese confessional parties (Cammett documents 57 welfare agencies against the Kataeb's 9, with the Future Movement more spatially inclusive but not institutionally deeper). Schools, hospitals, reconstruction, and micro-lending address subsistence — but the welfare function is ethical-symbolic rather than clientelist. The numbers are too small for material binding (roughly 20,000 direct beneficiaries in a community of 1.5 million); what the provision demonstrates is competence and dedication the state lacks. The binding operates through other dimensions. The jam'iyya network — neighborhood associations described as "second homes" — addresses connection/belonging and recognition simultaneously: these are spaces where members are seen and known as specific persons, where personal relationships are maintained over years, where standing reflects real participation in the community's life. The reconstructed Shi'i identity inverts historical stigma into civilizational pride, providing identity through a narrative of resistance and dignity. Volunteer networks and the political party provide participation. The Resistance — the military wing's ongoing confrontation with Israel — provides protection and, crucially, experienced collective efficacy: the 2000 Liberation of southern Lebanon and the 2006 war demonstrated that the movement's military capacity produces results, giving members a sense of power-to that abstract political programs cannot match.

Two dimensions stand out for their institutional development. Mourning/celebration pervades the movement's organizational life: Ashura commemorations transform communal mourning into political renewal, the martyrdom culture provides elaborate rituals for processing loss (families of martyrs receive sustained institutional attention and social standing), Liberation Day and Divine Victory celebrations mark collective achievements, and taklif ceremonies initiate young people into the movement's moral community. The left has almost nothing comparable — no ritualized way of processing the losses that political struggle inevitably produces, no communal celebrations that mark achievements rather than instrumentalizing them. Order/harmony operates through what Deeb calls iltizam — the inseparability of humanitarian, political, and religious motivation. This is not an ideology imposed from above but an experienced coherence: the volunteer who staffs the clinic, the fighter who defends the border, and the mourner who commemorates the martyr all experience their activity as expressions of a single moral-social cosmos in which daily practice is connected to transcendent purpose. The aspirational dimension — the Resistance as horizon — is embedded in this coherence rather than layered on top of it.

The class dynamics complicate the picture. Hezbollah serves a rising Shi'a bourgeoisie concentrated in construction, trade, and Iranian-linked capital. At every decision point — Paris III austerity, MEA privatization, wage reform — the movement has accommodated neoliberal restructuring. Most consequentially, at every major moment of cross-sectarian working-class mobilization (2004, 2008, 2011, 2013-14), Hezbollah refused to participate, actively demobilized its base, or used military force to prevent cross-sectarian class action. The May 2008 seizure of West Beirut was explicitly aimed at preventing a cross-sectarian general strike from succeeding. The competing solidarity doesn't just address dimensions the left abandoned — it actively destroys the class solidarity that would threaten confessional politics. The domain separation operates clearly: the base participates for identity, connection/belonging, mourning/celebration, protection, and order/harmony; economic policy decisions serve the bourgeois fractions the base never encounters in those dimensions. This is what makes the right's competing solidarities so effective: the satisfiers are experientially effective — membership produces a fundamentally different relationship to social reality on the dimensions the base experiences (identity, belonging, protection, meaning) — while the governance of those satisfiers converges perfectly with the dominant social logic on the dimension the base doesn't encounter (class reproduction). The movement is transformative on the dimensions that bind and entirely conservative on the dimension that matters for capital. Domain separation is the mechanism that maintains the divergence on some dimensions while ensuring convergence on others.

The terms of belonging are exceptionally rigid — and the rigidity is externally imposed rather than internally generated. Boundary porosity is near zero: you are Shi'a by birth, and the confessional system makes the effective boundary hereditary and non-negotiable. Provision operates through what the movement's volunteers call taw'iyya (consciousness-raising): visitors teach families "authenticated Islam, proper hygiene, how to raise children" (Deeb). This is conditionality operating through uplift — material provision and cultural transformation are inseparable, and volunteers' frequent complaints about poor families' "backwardness" (takhalluf) reveal a meritocratic dimension: the welfare relationship is also a class-disciplinary project, with middle-class volunteers defining what proper Shi'a modernity looks like. The Security Organ Unit adds a coercive dimension the essay's other cases lack: policing Shi'a areas and suppressing dissent, with services available to those who maintain political loyalty (J. Daher). Demands are high: iltizam is synergistic on the dimensions it addresses — order/harmony, identity, and belonging all reinforced through a single lived coherence — but inhibiting on autonomy, because the inseparability of humanitarian, political, and religious commitments means you cannot participate in one dimension without accepting all. The martyrdom culture asks willingness to sacrifice. The scope of the moral community is confessional — the May 2008 action demonstrates active boundary-policing — though the movement articulates a universalist ethic ("if he's not your brother in Islam, he is your brother in humanity") that the institutional infrastructure does not operationalize. The Hezbollah-Aoun alliance shows the boundary operates differently at the elite/alliance level (cross-confessional pragmatic partnership with Maronite Christians) than at the communal-belonging level (Shi'a only), which means boundary porosity is not uniform across the organization's functions. The rigidity is a structural product of the Lebanese confessional system itself — every confessional party enforces comparable terms because the system is designed to prevent cross-sectarian solidarity.

The reproduction conditions are structurally favorable — and more internally differentiated than a simple "external funding" account captures. The military wing depends on Iranian patronage (channeled through CIRS and khums), but the social apparatus is largely self-financing: of roughly fifteen social institutions, only four are branches of Iranian parent organizations, and "programs and projects must be self-financed by the Lebanese branch" through Lebanese donations, institutional revenues, religious taxes, government subsidies, and volunteer labor (A. Daher). A third revenue stream — illicit activity including drug trafficking, smuggling, and operations in the tri-border area earning an estimated $200-500 million annually (Love) — provides additional insulation from both patron and community, though at the cost of legal vulnerability and corruption dynamics (the 2009 Ponzi scheme by Salah Izz al-Din, with close ties to Nasrallah, bilked up to a billion dollars from Shi'a investors). The education pipeline runs through the Imam al-Mahdi Scouts — approximately 60,000 members ages 8-16, transferred to the military wing at 17, combining "traditional scouting activities" with indoctrination "included in every activity" (Love). Al-Manar television and a broader media infrastructure maintain the narrative continuously. The jam'iyya network provides spatial anchoring at the neighborhood level. The confessional system itself functions as a legal architecture of asymmetric tolerance — designed to prevent cross-sectarian class politics, which means confessional organizations are structurally protected while class-based alternatives are structurally excluded. And the Shi'a diaspora provides transnational reach that domestic destruction alone cannot eliminate.

The organizing dimension is sustained not only by the movement's own capacity but by what A. Daher calls "the Other's errors": each mistake by Israel, the US, or the March 14 coalition — the tacit support for Israeli action during the 2006 war (confirmed by the Winograd Commission), the inability to protect Lebanon from Israeli violations, perceived alliance with the US — reinforces the resistance frame without the organization having to produce it. The organizing dimension has a self-reinforcing quality that makes it harder to challenge: external actors' behavior confirms the protection frame even when the movement is not actively mobilizing it. But the aspirational dimension has narrowed: the 1985 Open Letter called for an Islamic republic; the 2009 Manifesto declares "Lebanon is our homeland" and calls for national unity within a reformed sectarian system (Norton). The aspiration has shifted from expansive (Islamic revolution) to defensive (maintaining the resistance, preserving communal autonomy) — weaker than Hindutva's Hindu Rashtra or Christian nationalism's Kingdom of God.

Hezbollah has not been metabolized into the state, and the reasons are structural: the self-financing social apparatus prevents dependence on domestic capital; the confessional system prevents full state capture; the military wing cannot be institutionally absorbed; the ongoing Israeli threat sustains resistance legitimation. But non-metabolization does not mean anti-systemic. External patronage substitutes external for domestic dependency, determining the movement's regional behavior — the Syria intervention deployed 8,000 fighters at peak in a war "many Lebanese Shi'a initially opposed" (Norton), and former secretary-general Tufayli accused Hezbollah of being "an instrument of Iranian ambition," declaring that "Hezbollahis who die in Syria are not martyrs but victims." This is the scalar trap: the local solidarity's reproduction conditions (transnational reach, external patronage) required action at the regional scale that contradicted the local base's preferences. The movement's internal class-composition shift compounds the accommodation: J. Daher documents "the growing significance inside the party of new higher-middle-class cadres involved in liberal professions, and a weakening of radical and smaller petit bourgeois elements." As the party's internal composition increasingly mirrors the Shi'a bourgeoisie, cross-sectarian class mobilization looks like "instability" rather than emancipation — not because of cynicism but because that is how the class fraction now dominating the cadre layer experiences it. The movement is class-captured without being metabolized — system-serving through accommodation rather than through absorption. And the non-commutative character may be degrading over time: the vanguard generation's deep conviction produced a form of life the second generation inherits as social norm — Deeb's "bannat" must "work to strengthen conviction" after the fact, and the Syria intervention has eroded the resistance legitimation that sustained genuine commitment. Waning zeal among Shi'a youth (Norton) suggests the solidarity may be becoming more commutative — the satisfiers losing their authenticity as what was lived coherence for the first generation becomes inherited social norm for the second, membership producing social identity without a genuinely different relationship to social reality.

The gendered dimension adds a third configuration distinct from both the Turkish and Indian cases. Women use Fadlullah's progressive jurisprudence to push back against patriarchal constraints within the authenticated Islam framework — neither the patriarchal bargain of the Turkish case (subordination in exchange for public access) nor simple exclusion, but active contestation of gender norms through the movement's own theological resources. This "gender jihad" operates within the bounds the movement's organizing dimension (protection/resistance) sets — it does not challenge the military hierarchy or the confessional system itself — but it demonstrates that gendered infrastructure need not be purely patriarchal even within movements whose overall class orientation is conservative.

American Christian nationalism: asymmetric co-production and the judicial ratchet

The American case (Stewart 2020; Whitehead and Perry 2020; Moreton 2009; Ingersoll 2015; Hollis-Brusky 2015; Jones 2016; Kruse 2015; Du Mez 2020; Sutton 2014; Noll 1994) differs from the other three in a way that illuminates the framework's analytical range: this is a competing solidarity that is dimensionally narrow but institutionally deep in specific channels, that was constructed as a class project before it became a mass movement, and whose relationship to the state reverses the metabolization pattern the AKP case illustrates.

The field was cleared over decades. McCarthyism destroyed the institutional left of the 1930s-40s. COINTELPRO targeted the Black Panthers and the broader New Left in the 1960s-70s. Taft-Hartley and right-to-work laws dismantled the organizational infrastructure of industrial unionism. By the time the Christian nationalist movement achieved mass political influence in the 1980s-90s, there was no organizational left of comparable dimensional breadth for it to compete against. The movement occupied a field the state had cleared — the same structural pattern as Turkey and India, achieved through different institutional mechanisms spread over a longer period.

A crucial analytical distinction must be made at the outset: Christian nationalism and personal religiosity consistently push in opposite directions. Higher religiosity predicts care for the vulnerable, openness to refugees, recognition of racial discrimination; higher Christian nationalism predicts boundary maintenance, authoritarian control, and indifference to justice. The competing solidarity is not "religion" but the specific fusion of religious identity with ethno-national hierarchy. Treating religious movements as inherently reactionary — as much left analysis does — misidentifies the mechanism entirely.

What the movement provides dimensionally is distinctive precisely because of what it lacks. It actively opposes public welfare, interpreting redistribution as un-Christian dependence, while offering only thin church-based charity. Subsistence is the weakest dimension — and the absence is constitutive, not accidental: the theological framework (prosperity as divine favor, poverty as spiritual failing) precludes material redistribution as a matter of doctrine. What the movement does provide, with considerable depth, is order/harmony — the biblical worldview as a total moral-social cosmos in which every domain of life has its proper place, every hierarchy reflects divine intention, and the chaos of a changing world becomes legible as spiritual warfare. This is arguably the core appeal: not identity alone but the felt sense of existing within a coherent moral universe where your suffering has meaning and the disorder around you has a cause (secular humanism, cultural Marxism, the liberal elite) and a resolution (the Kingdom of God, the restoration of Christian America).

The aspirational horizon is specifically premillennial catastrophic rupture, not progressive moral improvement — and this differentiates Christian nationalism's aspiration analytically from Hindutva's civilizational recovery and Hezbollah's resistance victory. Adherents believe Christ's return will be preceded by the Antichrist's rise, the persecution of true believers, and the forcible dismantling of secular order. Structural reform is therefore incoherent as a political goal; the only acceptable politics is defensive protection of Christian institutions, souls, and moral order from encroaching end-times corruption. This shapes everything that follows — the cognitive framework through which adherents read political events, the gendered apparatus that reproduces the movement, the relationship to the state, and the terms on which the coalition binds itself together.

Connection/belonging operates through the church community — one of the few remaining institutional spaces in post-industrial America where people meet face-to-face on a weekly basis, know each other's families, and maintain relationships over years. Recognition operates through what Moreton documents as the movement's distinctive currency: SIFE paid participants in "recognition, appreciation, the chance to give advice" — being seen as someone whose experience matters, whose contribution counts, whose voice is heard. In the post-industrial service economy, where workers are interchangeable and disposable, this recognition carries extraordinary weight. Mourning/celebration pervades the movement's institutional life: communal mourning for the loss of "Christian America" (white Protestants declining from 51% to 32% of the population in two decades), the evangelical ritual calendar, church funerals and weddings as the remaining communal rituals in a society that has commodified most others. Play is largely absent — the puritanical work ethic suppresses it. Efficacy/power-to operates through legislative activism and culture-war mobilization but is constrained to the identity/meaning realm: the base experiences agency through voting, petitioning, and the feeling of participating in a cosmic struggle, but not through material capacity to shape their economic circumstances.

The gendered dimension is where the movement's binding mechanism is sharpest. The service economy that expanded as US manufacturing contracted from the 1970s onward produces de-unionized, feminized, low-wage work that cannot sustain family reproduction, creating demand for institutions that can resolve the contradiction between women's necessary wage labor and patriarchal household authority. "Servant leadership" does exactly this: it simultaneously dignifies subordinate service work as Christian virtue and produces the communication skills the post-industrial workplace demands, so that the medium and the message become identical. The evangelical framing recodes subordinate service work as ministry, and the gendered apparatus that delivers the framing reaches the household directly through mass-media and consumer-culture channels rather than through face-to-face cadre visits. Focus on the Family, broadcasting on 2,000+ radio stations by the 2000s with 6-10 million weekly listeners and a 2-million-strong mailing list, is the central instrument. The vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of letters it received annually came from women: the apparatus reached the household because it reached women first, through media consumed while doing housework, and then shaped the terms on which household disputes were adjudicated.

The sub-organizational architecture is comparable in scale to the Sangh Parivar's, operating through mass media rather than through cadre visits. Focus on the Family handles the household-media front. Promise Keepers and the hundreds of men's ministries that followed organize masculinity as movement identity (700,000+ men on the National Mall at the 1997 Stand in the Gap rally). The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the 1998 SBC Baptist Faith and Message revision (which made wifely submission a confessional requirement) provide the theological scaffolding. Homeschool networks (1.7 million US children by 2016, two-thirds religiously motivated), purity culture (father-daughter purity balls, abstinence pledges, Josh Harris's million-plus-copy I Kissed Dating Goodbye), and the Christian retail apparatus (LifeWay, ~3,000 Christian Booksellers Association stores) handle child formation, adolescent regulation, and the distribution of consumer goods through which the identity is performed and reproduced.

Gender hierarchy is what holds this coalition together. Denomination, theology, class, and race vary wildly across American evangelicalism; what everyone agrees on is women's submission. Submission theology functions simultaneously as the movement's shared doctrinal commitment, as its enforcement mechanism (female members who resist publicly are excommunicated from the consumer-culture network; LifeWay stops stocking their books), and as the structural condition that produces systematic abuse: unchecked patriarchal authority, obligation to submit, shielding of perpetrators, and shaming of victims generate abuse as output, not aberration. The Houston Chronicle documented 380+ SBC perpetrators with 700+ victims since 1998; Independent Fundamental Baptists have 412+ allegations across 187 churches; Sovereign Grace Ministries pressured victims not to report; John Piper counseled women to endure "being smacked one night" before seeking church help. The patriarchal bargain in this case is specifically compensatory: as breadwinner status eroded from the 1970s onward, men were offered continued domestic and religious authority plus a warrior-identity that rescued their sense of self. Promise Keepers' "servant leadership" was explicitly adopted as compensation so that, no longer producers in a traditional sense, "men could still be leaders." The compensation is symbolic rather than materially mediated: men do not gain control over women's wages or movement, as in the Turkish case where veiling purchases public access, or in the Indian case where the two-circuit gendered infrastructure delivers material welfare alongside ideological training. But the binding is no less effective for that. Gender hierarchy is the coalition's glue precisely because it operates at the level of identity and household authority rather than at the level of economic distribution. The structural inverse of Rojava's constitutive gender model is exact: where Rojava produces women's binding authority and men's checked power, submission theology produces men's unchecked authority and women's structural vulnerability, and the abuse record is the predictable output of the arrangement rather than a deviation from it.

The gendered apparatus extends into the state through the armed forces. Colorado Springs concentrates the fusion spatially: Air Force Academy, three air force bases, an army fort, NORAD, and roughly 100 evangelical parachurch organizations within a five-mile radius. The Army Chief of Staff distributed Dobson's Where's Dad? video to all 780,000 active-duty soldiers in 1984 as the building block of the Army Family Action Plan. By 2005, 40% of active-duty personnel and 60% of military chaplains identified as evangelical. The revolving door between command and movement leadership (Jerry Boykin from Delta Force to Family Research Council; Oliver North from Iran-Contra to SBC speaking circuits to NRA presidency) traces the institutional integration. The movement does not reach the state through electoral politics alone; it reaches it through the armed forces, and the reach is reciprocal.

The class dynamics take a form unique among the four cases. The corporate construction was prior to the mass mobilization, and it ran fifty years longer than the Fifield/NAM story captures: Sutton traces the apparatus back to the 1880s. William Blackstone, a wealthy Chicago real estate developer whose apocalyptic theology emerged during the 1877 rail strikes, published Jesus Is Coming in 1878 and organized the 1891 Blackstone Memorial — signed by J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller — calling for restoration of Palestine to Jewish sovereignty. Lyman Stewart (Union Oil) funded BIOLA. Henry Parsons Crowell (Quaker Oats) chaired Moody Bible Institute's board. Bible institutes, prophecy conferences, religious magazines (Moody Monthly, King's Business, Our Hope), and by the 1920s-30s radio networks (Charles Fuller, Aimee Semple McPherson) were continuously built from 1880s-1930s. James Fifield's Spiritual Mobilization, launched in the 1930s-40s and funded by NAM and the Liberty League, recruited 17,000 ministers to preach free enterprise as Christian doctrine — but it plugged into an apparatus that had already been operating for half a century. A GM consultant articulated the operational principle: ministers cannot be told — they must be "helped to discover it for themselves." The funding architecture — from Fifield through Rushdoony through the present DeVos/Prince/Green/Wilks/Mercer/Koch/Bradley network — structured the field through funding and issue selection.

But the base participated sincerely because the ideology compensated for real losses: yeoman self-sufficiency, family stability, dignified labor. Moreton's concept of "asymmetric co-production" captures the mechanism: the class project and the genuine movement are not contradictory but structurally linked. The same concept applies to the ideological substrate: Christian Reconstruction (Rushdoony) achieved an "elective affinity" between Calvinist theology and plutocratic interests — the theology was genuinely autonomous in origin but produced policy prescriptions (radical state minimization, opposition to welfare/regulation/public education) perfectly aligned with corporate interests, making it available for recruitment without compromising its theological integrity. Calvinist election functions as meritocratic reasoning anchored in cosmic authority — more durable than secular variants because adherents experience it as faithfulness rather than class interest. The diffusion infrastructure (homeschool curricula, providential history, lifestyle ecosystem, church courts) spreads these ideas without recipients recognizing the Reconstructionist source.

Dispensationalism functions as the specific cognitive-framing mechanism that screens class analysis. Every economic and political phenomenon is rewritten as prophetic fulfillment. In the 1930s: labor unrest as "the lawless one," FDR as an Antichrist type, the NRA Blue Eagle as the mark of the beast, Social Security numbers as totalitarian preparation, Eleanor Roosevelt as a gender-disorder symbol, the Federal Reserve as the Antichrist's financial system. The frame has continuously updated — welfare expansion, the UN, computerized banking, COVID public health measures — but the operational logic is constant. This is not rhetoric layered on top of material interests; it is the operational form of the cognitive screen that makes class analysis unintelligible within the movement. Real economic grievances — wage stagnation, family instability, deindustrialization — are experienced and named eschatologically rather than structurally, which is why the base can feel intensely aggrieved about economic decline while voting consistently for the capital fractions that produced it. Noll's internal critique specifies what the understanding dimension looks like under these conditions. The movement delivers the outward form of serious intellectual engagement (study, exposition, systematic argument, institutional apparatus — Bible colleges, study guides, prophecy conferences, creationist research institutes) while structurally preventing encounter with any evidence that might disturb the preexisting interpretive grid. Noll's formulation captures the result: "interpretations of 'the times' produced without going to the inconvenient work of ever looking at the times themselves." It is a pseudo-satisfier in Max-Neef's precise sense: the activity feels like inquiry, produces the affect of understanding, generates institutional forms — while ensuring that the believer's grasp of the actual world is not improved and may be actively degraded.

Apocalyptic belief also mobilizes through a specific dual structure: it makes action urgent (time is short, the window is closing, every political development is a sign) and cost-free (outcomes are predetermined, believers cannot change the cosmic trajectory, failed predictions are absorbed as further evidence rather than refutation). This generates intense political energy while releasing adherents from accountability for concrete outcomes. The Reagan paradox resolves the apparent contradiction: "live as though Christ was coming back today; act as if the rapture was a millennium away." The frame is useful to political operators who don't share the theology precisely because it provides rhetorical fuel for uncompromising politics while leaving strategic decision-making in cooler hands. And it explains the movement's remarkable resilience against empirical failure: the Antichrist was Napoleon, then Mussolini, then Hitler, then Kissinger; Israel's "restoration" was proved from the 1890s onward; Gog has been a standing threat since the Crimean War. None of this discredits the framework because within the framework, nothing can. That the Black premillennialist counter-tradition (Smallwood Williams, William Pannell, Tom Skinner, John Perkins, Clarence Hilliard) reads the same theology toward opposite politics — Skinner's 1970 Urbana sermon: "I as a black Christian have to renounce Americanism. I have to renounce any attempt to wed Jesus Christ off to the American system" — demonstrates that premillennialism as such does not determine political orientation. Racial position does. The theology is the vehicle; the racial location is the driver.

This historical depth also demolishes the standard Scopes→retreat→Moral Majority return narrative. Fundamentalists were politically engaged continuously from the 1920s: church-based voter mobilization against Al Smith in 1928 (predating Moral Majority by fifty years); anti-New Deal organizing throughout the 1930s and 1940s; Ockenga's 1942 NAE founding sermon explicitly targeting "statism" alongside Catholicism, liberalism, and secularism; Falwell preaching against the Selma march in 1965 on Romans 13 grounds before inverting the principle a decade later. The Moral Majority (1979) did not mark the movement's entry into politics. It marked the moment when institutional infrastructure matured enough to shift from church-by-church mobilization to national partisan apparatus. The causation across the long arc is a steady inversion: from "party uses movement" (pre-1980) to "movement uses party" (post-1980) to "movement is party" (post-2016).

The reproduction conditions are distinctive: the movement's institutional apparatus was built with corporate funding rather than accumulated through religious institutional continuity, but it now operates through church infrastructure (spatial anchoring), an education pipeline (homeschool networks, Christian universities, providential history curricula) that reproduces the movement generationally, and a media ecosystem (evangelical broadcasting, Christian radio, Fox News as de facto movement media, and social media networks) that maintains the narrative continuously. The legal environment provides permanent structural subsidy through tax-exempt status for religious organizations — a material advantage the left has no equivalent of. The movement is also expanding transnationally (Africa, Eastern Europe, Brazil), exporting the culture-war framework through missionary and legal networks.

Two institutional mechanisms further distinguish this case from the other three. First, the judicial ratchet: the Federalist Society has achieved a near-monopoly on credentialing conservative legal elites, placing judges who install constitutional doctrine (abortion bans, religious exemptions, weakened regulatory capacity) that cannot be reversed through normal democratic processes. This is institutional encasement through the judiciary — the same ratchet mechanism the framework identifies for treaty architecture, operating through the domestic constitutional order. The abortion issue itself was deliberately constructed by Weyrich and the New Right in the late 1970s to replace their unmarketable real motivating issue (defending segregated school tax exemptions) — the movement manufactured the identity marker around which it organized. Second, the reversed metabolization: unlike the AKP (where the movement was absorbed into neoliberal governance), the Republican Party is being absorbed into the Christian nationalist movement — the movement has more organizational discipline than the party apparatus, and the party is being metabolized into a vehicle for the movement's goals rather than the reverse. Du Mez specifies the mechanism more precisely: the movement's capture of the GOP was mediated by consumer-culture formation of political subjects operating underneath clerical leadership. When evangelical pastors tried to steer the base away from Trump in the 2016 primaries on obvious Christian-ethical grounds, they discovered their own obsolescence: the consumer-culture apparatus had already formed the base's political subjectivity, and the base simply overrode the pulpit. The movement absorbed its own clerical leadership before it absorbed the party. The 2016 vote was not a rupture from prior evangelical commitments but the logical culmination of a trajectory the gendered consumer culture had been producing since the 1970s — one that valued warrior-masculinity, cultural combat, and the strong patriarch over any particular moral scruple about a candidate's personal conduct.

The movement is demographically declining but institutionally adapting. White Christian America is shrinking as a cultural identification, but the organizational infrastructure is not contracting — it is expanding into Latino communities, investing in data-driven micro-targeting, and pursuing state-level legislative strategy alongside the judicial long game. The attitudinal intensity among the remaining base is increasing. Cultural identification, organizational infrastructure, and attitudinal intensification move independently — and the judicial ratchet means the infrastructure can outlast the cultural identification. Constitutional doctrine placed by a movement whose mass base is shrinking continues to constrain democratic politics long after the base has contracted. The movement's exclusionary boundaries are producing their own demographic crisis: gay marriage functioned as the boundary marker that expelled the cohort needed for generational reproduction. But the institutional architecture is designed to survive this — which is what makes it a ratchet rather than a mobilization cycle.

The racial boundary is constitutive from the movement's inception, not a recent distortion. Sutton documents that the theological tools for racial hierarchy (curse of Ham, biblical separation, purity rhetoric) were developed alongside the apocalyptic theology in the 1880s-1920s and are structurally inseparable from it. A.C. Dixon called Black male suffrage "the blunder of the age"; Moody Monthly editors held that "most African Americans — along with uneducated whites — were unworthy of suffrage"; Donald Grey Barnhouse preached that African Americans bore the "curse of Ham" and were destined to serve "Semites" and "Japhethites." The Azusa Street revival (1906) was briefly integrated, but Pentecostalism split along racial lines by the 1920s as the price of mainstream respectability. Contemporary "color-blind" evangelical rhetoric is discontinuous with this institutional history, not the recovery of a suppressed universalism.

The terms of belonging are visibly self-undermining. Boundary porosity is theoretically open (conversion is possible) but effectively gated by ethno-national identity — whiteness is the unmarked entry condition. Conditionality is heavy: provision of meaning, community, and recognition is conditional on doctrinal conformity, and Calvinist election makes the conditions theological — material standing as evidence of divine selection. Demands are totalizing: the "biblical worldview" as complete moral-social cosmos, homeschool curricula as total-environment formation, lifestyle ecosystem as daily practice. The scope of the moral community is narrow and narrowing — LGBTQ people categorically excluded, secular humanists demonized, the "culture war" framework treating internal pluralism as existential threat. The exclusionary boundary is constitutive of the movement's binding power (the threat of an enemy is what gives the order/harmony dimension its urgency) while simultaneously contracting the base — the terms of belonging produce the intensity that makes the solidarity work and the demographic decline that threatens its reproduction.

Why competing solidarities occupy the field

These cases already reveal something that the dimensional-coverage analysis alone does not explain, but that much of the left of course is well-aware of. In no case did the competing solidarity outcompete the left in open contest. In Turkey, the 1980 military coup physically destroyed the left before the Islamist movement occupied the field. In Lebanon, the confessional system was designed to prevent cross-sectarian class politics, and Israeli occupation channeled Shi'a mobilization into resistance rather than class struggle. In the United States, decades of anti-left repression (catalogued in the Christian nationalism case above) eliminated the organizational infrastructure through which class solidarity could have competed. In India, Congress's demobilization of the labor movement and the Emergency's destruction of independent organizing capacity preceded Hindutva's rise to mass influence.

The competing solidarity's dimensional advantage is real — but it operates on a field that state violence has cleared. Factor 1 of the framework's mediating layer (coercive capacity) functions as a selection mechanism: the state tolerates or actively encourages religious and national organizations while destroying class-based alternatives. The competition is mediated by the same configuration the framework analyzes throughout. This does not diminish the analytical importance of dimensional breadth — the right addresses needs the left often ignores, and would outcompete even without the field being cleared — but it specifies that the left's failure is not only a failure of dimensional breadth. It is also a consequence of the institutional architecture destroying the organizational forms through which broader solidarity could have been built.

A second structural condition operates alongside the first: competition-state restructuring dismantles the public provision that religious organizations then replace. Özal's neoliberal restructuring in Turkey, the Lebanese state's deliberate weakness, the dismantling of the US welfare state and the union movement, the Indian state's retreat from developmental provision — in each case, the withdrawal of public welfare produced an institutional dismantlement that only organizations capable of providing material and identity services simultaneously could address. The organizations that fill the gap share a structural advantage that is material as much as dimensional. Some — churches, mosques, temple networks — have buildings, land, endowments, and independent revenue streams (tithes, waqf, khums, donations) accumulated over centuries of institutional continuity. Others built their infrastructure during or after the restructuring: the RSS constructed its shakha system from public parks and rented rooms, funded through dues and pracharak labor; the AKP grew its vakıf network in the space Özal's restructuring opened; American Christian nationalism was built with corporate money (Fifield, NAM, the DeVos/Prince network) channeled through existing church infrastructure. What these share is not pre-existing dimensional breadth as such but the structural conditions for building or maintaining it: funding independent of the state and the wage relation, state tolerance or active encouragement of their organizational forms, and — for the religious cases — a cultural substrate (festivals, ritual calendars, communal practices) that provides dimensional raw material even when the organizational forms are new. Secular left organizations had none of these advantages: organized around the workplace and the welfare state, they lost their physical infrastructure, their funding base, and their organizational forms simultaneously when both were dismantled. The competition state creates the conditions for competing solidarities to flourish — not because people become more religious under austerity but because the structural conditions for building and maintaining dimensional infrastructure are asymmetrically distributed.

Class divergence within competing solidarities

The dimensional analysis explains part of how competing solidarities attract a mass base — but governance form, recognition infrastructure, and terms of belonging are equally determinative. What dimensional analysis alone does not explain is whose interests the movement ultimately serves — and the evidence from all three new cases shows a consistent pattern: the movement's leadership and professional cadre serve different class interests than the rank-and-file base.

In Turkey, the AKP's Islamist cadre who built the grassroots infrastructure became neoliberal administrators — their class position changed as the movement captured the state. In Lebanon, Hezbollah serves a rising Shi'a bourgeoisie while the base is predominantly working-class and poor. In the United States, the funding architecture serves corporate fractions (anti-regulation, anti-union, anti-welfare) while the base is predominantly working-class and lower-middle-class. In each case, the movement's leadership makes economic policy decisions that serve specific capital fractions while the base receives identity, belonging, meaning, and (variably) material welfare.

The class divergence persists not through active deception but through four structural mechanisms:

Domain separation. The areas where the base is active (community, welfare, culture, identity) are organizationally separate from where the leadership makes class-serving decisions (economic policy, institutional architecture, labor relations). The base doesn't experience economic policy as "their" domain because the movement has already met their needs in other dimensions.

The threat frame. An external enemy (Israel, secularism, "cultural Marxism," the liberal elite) provides permanent justification for unity that makes questioning the leadership's economic choices feel like disloyalty to the community under existential threat.

Experiential satisfaction. The needs the base brings to the movement are real, and the movement's satisfiers — community, meaning, belonging, mutual support — effectively address them, making abstract concerns about economic policy feel less urgent than the concrete benefits received daily. The movement works for the base in the dimensions the base participates for — which is why dismissing it as "false consciousness" misses the mechanism entirely. That the satisfiers also carry destructive dimensions — outgroup violence, self-undermining economic governance, demands that escalate from conformity through cultural policing to war — does not diminish the experiential effectiveness; the costs are either screened by domain separation or reframed by the threat frame as necessary defense of the community the satisfier sustains.

Cognitive framing. The ideological architecture (Calvinist election, authenticated Islam, Hindutva's civilizational narrative) attributes economic hardship to external enemies or personal/spiritual failing rather than to the leadership's class-serving choices. Moreton's servant leadership illustrates the mechanism: a pseudo-satisfier for autonomy that reframes economic subordination as spiritual calling.

These four mechanisms mean the leadership rarely needs to actively distract — the organizational form does it structurally. This is why the distinction between mobilized and organized movements (McAlevey) matters: in an organized movement, the base develops its own analysis and would eventually notice the mismatch between the leadership's economic choices and the base's material interests. In a mobilized movement, the base participates within a framework set by others and has no organizational mechanism for developing independent class analysis of the movement's own leadership. All four competing solidarities examined here are mobilized rather than organized — the RSS pracharak system, the AKP party discipline, Hezbollah's military command structure, and the Federalist Society's credentialing monopoly all ensure hierarchical governance — which is what allows the class divergence to persist.

A distinction within the class-divergence pattern is necessary. For movements that began as genuine resistance and were absorbed into system-serving forms — the AKP, the ANC, postwar European social democracy — the framework's concept of metabolization applies: deliberate counter-organization by actors whose extraction has been disrupted, operating over timescales during which the gains resistance won are real. For movements that defended a form of class rule from the start but whose organizational elites serve specific fractions the base doesn't share interests with — Hezbollah serving the Shi'a bourgeoisie, Christian nationalism serving corporate fractions — a different concept is needed: class capture, in which the movement's organizational form is shaped by its funding sources and elite interests without the movement ever having been anti-systemic. The two can overlap: the AKP started as metabolization (genuine grassroots challenge absorbed into neoliberal governance) and ended as class capture (the leadership's class position having diverged from the base's). The analytical question is not whether the movement has been "metabolized" (which implies a trajectory from opposition to absorption) but whose class interests it serves and through what mechanisms the base is prevented from contesting this.

Left cases: what has been attempted and why it failed

The right-wing cases above show how competing solidarities succeed. The left cases show what it looks like when movements attempt the same dimensional breadth under collective governance — and what undermines or destroys them. A general pattern emerges across four historical cases and one contemporary experiment: the left achieves substantial dimensional breadth but consistently fails on gender, on order/harmony (offering critique without an alternative felt sense of cosmos), on mourning/celebration (no ritualized processing of loss or joy), and on recognition (mass organizational forms that address participation without making people individually visible). It is then destroyed through a combination of external violence and internal organizational weakness that the governance form determines.

These are, by and large, the best cases — the historical moments where the left came closest to building dimensionally comprehensive alternatives under collective governance. The more common trajectory in contemporary metropolitan societies — professionalization, funder dependency, mission drift, the progressive absorption of oppositional organizations into the nonprofit ecosystem — does not produce cases worth analyzing here because it does not produce competing solidarities at all. It produces organizations that address one or two dimensions under professional management while ceding the rest to the market, the state, or the right. The companion essay on NGOification develops that analysis; what follows here are the cases where something more ambitious was attempted.

Spanish anarchism: the field-not-cleared counterfactual

The Spanish anarchist movement (Bookchin 1978; Ackelsberg 1991; Ealham 2010) is the case where the historical documentation is richest for what dimensionally comprehensive left infrastructure can achieve, and the counterfactual is direct: where the left built a competing solidarity of comparable dimensional breadth under collective governance, the right could not establish itself on the same terrain.

The context matters: Spain had the strongest anarchist movement in the world, rooted in the specific conditions of Catalan industrialization — a working class concentrated in Barcelona's dense barris (neighborhoods like the Raval), employed in textile factories and construction, living in conditions of extreme proximity, and facing a state whose repressive apparatus (the pistoleros, the Primo de Rivera dictatorship, the Ley de Fugas) radicalized rather than pacified. The Church controlled education, healthcare, and moral discipline through an institutional infrastructure experienced as persecutory. The CNT (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo), founded in 1910, organized along territorial rather than craft lines and grew to 700,000 members by 1919 and approximately 550,000 by the 1936 Saragossa congress. The Second Republic (1931-39) provided the political opening but not the organizational base, which the movement had built over decades.

The movement's institutional ecosystem — ateneos (neighborhood cultural centers), sindicatos únicos (territorial unions doubling as social hubs), grupos de afinidad (intimate cells functioning as extended families), escuelas racionalistas (Ferrer-model schools), comités de defensa (clandestine neighborhood defense committees), and a vast press/publishing network — was self-funded through member dues, mutual aid, and expropriation. No state dependency, no external patronage. The organizing dimension was participation: collective governance as the practice that held everything together. The sub-organizational architecture approached the problem differently from any other case: sub-organizations were specialized (the sindicato for workplace, the ateneo for culture, the grupo for close ties, the escuela for pedagogy, the defense committee for insurrectionary capacity) but heavily integrated through shared membership in a single barri and through overlapping personnel — the same worker belonged to the sindicato, frequented the ateneo, participated in a grupo de afinidad, sent her children to the racionalista school, and might serve on a defense committee, all within walking distance. The defense committees, organized by neighborhood from 1931 and reinforced in 1935, constituted a distinct organizational layer from both the sindicatos and the FAI: a clandestine military structure with its own command chain, responsible for arms caches, street-fighting capacity, and the coordination that directed the July 1936 insurrection against the military coup. They are the organizational innovation the existing literature on ateneos and sindicatos tends to miss. Legibility across sub-organizations was high because the base circulated through them physically. The architecture prefigured what the MST would later achieve through forced cross-sector membership at the núcleo level; the ateneos achieved it through geographic density instead.

What sets this case apart is not the dimensional breadth as such but the quality of the provision. The ateneos were synergistic satisfiers and spaces of authentic play — debate, experimentation, cultural creation, reading groups, theatrical performance — not instrumentalized as recruitment tools or ideological training but valued for their own sake. The grupos de afinidad were synergistic on recognition, connection, and protection: intimate cells of ten to twenty people who knew each other's lives, families, and circumstances — the anarchist equivalent of the pracharak's personal knowledge or the AKP's home-visit network, but under collective governance rather than hierarchical control. The sindicatos addressed subsistence, protection, and participation simultaneously — the territorial rather than craft structure meaning the union was also the neighborhood, the bargaining unit also the community. Ealham's ethnography of the barris documents a coherent moral world: the anarchist press inverted the dominant narrative (the real thieves were the politicians and capitalists; the expropiadores were evidence of working-class community strength, not criminality), and children grew up admiring resistance rather than respectability.

This is order/harmony operating through the barri as a felt moral cosmos — one that was articulated as a positive alternative vision (comunismo libertario, elaborated in detail at the 1936 Saragossa congress and demonstrated in practice at La Felguera during the Asturian insurrection). But the articulation took the form of a shared horizon — a classless, self-governing society to be built — rather than the civilizational narrative the right deploys: a story about who we already are, where we come from, and what destiny we are called to fulfill. That difference matters: a horizon mobilizes those already committed to building it, while a narrative can recruit by offering identity to those who have none. Mourning/celebration was present through funerals as political events, May Day processions, and the anarchist festival calendar — but less institutionally developed than in the right-wing cases.

Where this infrastructure was dimensionally comprehensive and collectively governed, the right could not establish itself. Right-wing organizations had no presence in the barris. The army couldn't operate in the neighborhoods during the July 1936 coup because workers knew the local topography. The Falange had only 3,000 members on the eve of the Civil War. The CEDA mobilized in regions where anarchist organization was weak, not strong. The Pla Macia urban planning scheme aimed to demolish the Raval precisely to destroy the spatial infrastructure of solidarity — zoning as counterrevolution. The MST case below confirms this pattern at larger scale and over a longer duration — where settlement infrastructure is dense (Pontal do Paranapanema, western Santa Catarina), the right has no foothold — but the barris achieved what they did without a territorial production base of the kind cooperative agriculture would later provide. Where the left builds genuinely, the right cannot compete.

Governance was hybrid, and the gap between formal procedure and actual decision-making widened precisely when it mattered most. Formally: assembly governance with mandated delegates, decisions flowing upward from sindicato assemblies through local, comarcal, and regional federations to national congresses. In practice: the FAI operated as an informal vanguard through overlapping membership, with "superior committees" of the CNT and FAI secretly pre-coordinating positions before broader plenums. The 1932-33 insurrections were organized not through the CNT's formal structures but through the defense committees (cuadros de defensa), bypassing the sindicatos entirely. When the movement faced its most consequential decision — whether to enter the Catalan and central governments in 1936, abandoning its anti-statist principles — the formal federalist architecture was overridden: a secret joint CNT-FAI plenum pre-coordinated the position, the Central Committee of Antifascist Militias was dissolved without base consultation, and the plenums that ratified government entry were called with three days' notice, presented with faits accomplis by the superior committees. Four CNT members entered the central government as ministers in November 1936. The anarchist refusal to theorize political authority did not prevent the exercise of informal authority at the decisive moment; it prevented the base from contesting it.

The gender failure is the case's central lesson for the present argument. Mujeres Libres — founded in 1936 because the CNT/FAI would not address gender — addressed every dimension through gendered organizational forms: literacy programs (understanding), apprenticeships (subsistence), guarderías volantes sending volunteers into homes so mothers could leave for union meetings — a synergistic satisfier addressing participation, connection, and autonomy simultaneously while inverting the right's household-penetration direction, conscious-motherhood programs (connection/belonging), sexual education and anti-prostitution analysis (autonomy/freedom). Ackelsberg's key finding: Mujeres Libres was denied recognition as a fourth branch of the libertarian movement alongside CNT, FAI, and FIJL. The youth federation received the recognition Mujeres Libres was denied — revealing that gender, not organizational principle, was the sticking point. The movement wanted captación (recruitment into existing structures) without capacitación (autonomous empowerment). The left reproduced the domain separation it claimed to oppose: political/domestic remained separated, gender was deferred to "after the revolution," and formal equality coexisted with participation structured around male norms. The composition-determines-intelligibility mechanism is sharp here: the movement's composition (male, industrial, literate enough for assembly participation) determined what it could see (workplace relations, state power, military conflict) and what it could not see (domestic subordination, gendered literacy barriers, the reproductive labor that enabled male activism). The movement "assumed an activist who could dedicate twenty-four hours a day" (Ackelsberg) — most working-class women were illiterate or semi-literate, and embarrassment about "cultural backwardness" prevented participation. The CNT secretary Vazquez argued "revolution is around the corner, we have no time to organize women." Ealham's ethnographic evidence confirms the movement was non-commutative on class and production relations while remaining commutative on gender: "cafes and bars remained male spaces; even by day women faced sexual harassment on the streets and on public transport, and many young women still went chaperoned." Anarchists "employed sexualized images of women to mobilize men for the militias" and Montseny "justified the flirtatious remarks made by the militiamen guarding Casa CNT-FAI to passing women." Membership did not produce a different relationship to patriarchal norms despite formal commitment to equality.

The terms of belonging were genuinely emancipatory — and the gender failure is precisely where they broke down. Boundary porosity was high: the barri was spatial, not ideological — you belonged by living there and participating. Conditionality of provision was low: the ateneos, sindicatos, and mutual aid networks served the neighborhood, not a membership list. Demands were light: participation was the organizing dimension, not conformity. The scope of the moral community was class-based and broad. But the de facto terms included accepting male norms of participation — meeting times, speaking conventions, the assumption that political work and domestic work occupied separate domains. Mujeres Libres' denied recognition reveals that the formally open terms concealed gendered exclusion the movement's own governance could not contest, because the governance form (assembly + informal FAI vanguard) lacked the structural mechanisms to make the terms themselves an object of collective deliberation.

The scalar limitation is the case's other central lesson, less discussed than gender but equally consequential. The anarchist movement built dimensionally comprehensive left infrastructure at the local level — but it had no strategy for composing barri-level solidarity into a force that could operate at the scale of the state, the war, or the international system. The barris could block the Falange locally; they could not block Franco's army, backed by German and Italian military power, operating at a scale the movement had no organizational mechanism to reach. The anarchist refusal to theorize political authority extended to a refusal to theorize scale — and the CNT's anti-electoral doctrine produced self-disarmament at the national level: the abstentionist campaign in November 1933 "contributed decisively to the magnitude of their victory" for the right (Bookchin). The movement's theory of action (direct action, anti-electoralism) was structurally incapable of scaling without continuous full mobilization. But the La Felguera commune during the 1934 Asturian insurrection shows a different scalar logic was available: the commune opted for comunismo libertario and "proved to be so successful, indeed so admirable, that surrounding communities invited the La Felguera Anarchists to advise them on reorganizing their own social order" (Bookchin). This is scale through attraction — the locally comprehensive form scaling by demonstration rather than by command. It was never theorized or operationalized, and forces operating at the national and international level (the Republic's dependence on Soviet arms, the Comintern's political conditions, Franco's geopolitical backing) determined the movement's fate in dimensions it could not contest. The communists of the period made the complementary error: they theorized scale (the International, the seizure of state power) but assumed that scaling could be achieved through party discipline and central command, without the locally embedded, dimensionally comprehensive infrastructure that actually produces durable solidarity. The result was organizational forms that could operate at scale but could not generate genuine solidarity — and that metabolized or destroyed the local forms that could.

The revolution itself demonstrated what replacement of the right's order/harmony infrastructure looked like in practice: the Church had controlled "schools, hospitals, orphanages, workhouses, and borstals" where clergy played "a prominent role in discipline and punishment" (Ealham). Workers had experienced "persecutory religiosity." Church buildings were physically converted: confession boxes became newspaper kiosks, churches became cinemas and schools — not just critique of the old moral cosmos but material conversion of its infrastructure into the new one. Collectivization was spontaneous and decentralized, organized primarily through the sindicatos: workers took over factories, transport, utilities, and services in the days after July 19. The central tension was between collectivization (enterprise-level worker control) and socialization (industry-wide coordination through the union federations), a debate the CNT never resolved. The Generalitat's Collectivization Decree of October 24, 1936, imposed government inspectors on collectivized enterprises, beginning the institutional rollback. In rural Aragon, the Council of Aragon functioned as a CNT-run regional government overseeing collectivization across liberated territory. Meanwhile, the PSUC (Communist Party) after July 1936 organized precisely the class sectors the CNT had excluded: the GEPCI enrolled 18,000 shopkeepers and small traders; by end of 1937, nearly 10,000 Catalan peasants were paid-up Communist Party members. The PSUC did not outcompete the CNT among workers; it organized the petit bourgeois sectors the CNT's composition rendered invisible — another composition-determines-intelligibility failure.

Destruction came in three phases: Republican legislative dismantling (280 political/union centers closed by October 1935) → Stalinist political neutralization (October 1936 decrees disbanding revolutionary committees, May Days) → Francoist physical destruction (targeted bombing of barris while leaving bourgeois areas unaffected). The right could not impose itself without first destroying existing left infrastructure.

The Proletkult: metabolization by a nominally sympathetic state

The early Soviet cultural experiment (Mally 1990; Fitzpatrick 1970) documents how metabolization operates step by step — and illustrates what is lost when it succeeds. Where the Spanish case shows what locally organized, collectively governed cultural life can achieve and what destroys it from outside, the Proletkult shows what destroys it from within — or rather, from a state that claims to be on the same side.

At its peak, 400,000 participants. Workers' clubs, theater, music, literature, science lectures, revolutionary festivals, literacy education. The organizing dimension was creation — not creation as an add-on to class politics but proletarian cultural production as the site through which class consciousness and collective identity were simultaneously built. The founding principle was samostoiatel'nost' — organizational independence, self-activity, the insistence that workers must create their own culture rather than receive it from above. This is autonomy/freedom as a lived practice and the satisfiers were both synergistic and authentic: studios where workers pursued French lessons, mechanical drawing, and artistic creation alongside political education — creation addressing the need on its own terms while simultaneously building understanding, participation, and identity. Workers recognized as creative beings with interests beyond survival, not just as labor-power requiring uplift. The aspirational dimension was powerful: the revolution as horizon, the worker as creator of a new civilization. Order/harmony operated through the revolutionary moment itself — the sense that cultural activity was part of a great historical transformation that gave daily practice transcendent meaning. Play was initially central: the creative experimentation, the variety of programs, the improvisational quality of early Proletkult work. Mourning/celebration operated through revolutionary festivals that marked the new temporal order.

Governance was aspirationally organized but structurally compromised. Formal rules delegated power to collectives; workshops were supposed to be student-directed. But intellectuals' cultural capital gave them disproportionate influence — "Intelligentkult." Mally's key finding: "the central Proletkult could not shape its constituency. It was very much the other way around" — the base shaped the organization, characteristic of organized forms. But the base that shaped it was not quite the proletariat the leadership imagined: Mally shows the actual composition was "artisans, white-collar workers, peasants, soldiers, youth (65% of members under 19 by 1925), and the children of workers." Local organizations offered "French classes for those seeking 'refinement,' and dance evenings for young people" — reflecting popular cultural demand rather than proletarian ideological purity. The movement was non-commutative in aspiration (workers creating their own culture) but the base's actual demands were commutative (they wanted the same cultural goods available to the middle class — French, dance, refinement). The divergence between what the leadership sought and what the composition produced was itself a vulnerability: the first generation of proletarian leaders "had never wanted to provide hygiene lectures or literacy classes and were more than happy to leave these tasks to state institutions" (Mally), preferring to nurture an elite cultural vanguard. The leadership's own preferences narrowed the movement's scope, making it vulnerable to the state's claim that it could deliver the mass-education functions better. State funding dependence gave the party leverage to override organized governance from outside — but the internal vanguardism was a precondition for the external subordination.

Mally documents a six-stage metabolization sequence: ideological delegitimation (Lenin branding it "Bogdanovist," 1920) → institutional subordination (Narkompros takeover) → selective defunding (NEP austerity targeting a politically suspect organization) → institutional transfer (to trade unions, 1925) → instrumentalization (First Five-Year Plan) → dissolution (April 1932 directive). The organized-to-mobilized transition is visible in the details — and with it the destruction of authenticity: participant-composed work replaced by pre-written scenarios with "suggested questions and even suggested answers," synergistic satisfiers for creation degraded into pseudo-satisfiers that retained the form while hollowing out the self-directed substance. Financial dependence on the state was the primary lever at every stage.

The distinctive threat: metabolization by a nominally sympathetic state through claim-jumping and redundancy — "the party-state can deliver this better." Multidimensional organizations that address the same needs as state institutions face absorption on grounds of functional duplication: the state claims not opposition to the movement's goals but superior delivery of its functions. Different from welfare-state metabolization (where the state genuinely provides services), from external destruction (where the state kills the organization), and from professionalization (where the organization's own institutional interests displace its purpose). Socialist Realism absorbed Proletkult's insistence that art serve a social role while stripping out collective governance and creative independence — the rhetorical shell of the movement retained, the substance hollowed out. Goldman's parallel account of family policy confirms the pattern: the state discovered that autonomous working-class institutions were obstacles to accumulation and destroyed them. The MST navigated this threat more successfully — maintaining organizational independence throughout the PT period through territorial anchoring and independent funding (cooperative agriculture, seed networks, diversified donors) — though at the cost of organizational erosion through demand-redundancy: the PT made the MST's core demand structurally irrelevant rather than subordinating the movement institutionally. The comparison specifies what survival requires: reproduction conditions embedded in territory rather than dependent on state funding.

The terms of belonging track the metabolization. Initially: porous boundaries (400,000 participants at peak), unconditional provision (studios open to workers as such), light demands (samostoiatel'nost' — self-activity — was the only requirement), broad scope (the proletariat as moral community). Metabolization tightened each: the boundary between "proletarian" and "bourgeois" culture became a policing mechanism, provision became conditional on state-approved content, pre-written scenarios replaced self-directed creation (demands shifted from participation to conformity), and the scope narrowed to those producing art the party found useful. The claim-jumping mechanism operated through the state asserting control over the terms of belonging while retaining the movement's language.

Red Vienna: width + depth + funding without organized governance

Red Vienna (Gruber 1991) achieved wide dimensional coverage — and demonstrates that dimensional breadth and material depth are not sufficient without organized governance.

The material provision was extraordinary: 64,000 apartments in integrated housing complexes (the Karl-Marx-Hof and its peers), school reform plus the Bildungszentrale and worker libraries, symphony concerts and mass festivals through the Kunststelle, a 110,000-member sports federation (ASKO), healthcare clinics, youth infrastructure (Kinderfreunde → Rote Falken → SAJ), cooperatives, and paramilitary defense (Schutzbund). The sub-organizational architecture was highly specialized and professionally administered — each unit ran on its own institutional logic, with appointed leadership rather than base-level governance — and the absence of cross-unit integration was what allowed each sub-organization to professionalize independently. Red Vienna is the clearest case of specialization without integration: a dimensionally comprehensive provision apparatus in which the base participated unit by unit as recipient rather than as member, and no single location where the architecture as a whole could be seen and contested.

The organizing dimension was subsistence — this material provision was what bound participants. Connection/belonging operated through the housing complexes themselves, which were designed as integrated communities with shared courtyards, laundries, kindergartens, and meeting rooms — architecture as dimensional integration. Play was genuinely present: the ASKO sports clubs, the singing societies, the dancing — though these professionalized over time as institutional interests displaced participatory character. Red Vienna inherited the temporal-symbolic infrastructure of the broader German-Austrian social-democratic movement — alternative calendar, Arbeiter-Marseillaise, ritual objects, the Arbeiter identity as a source of dignity. What was distinctive about Red Vienna was the spatial dimension: the housing complexes made this symbolic world physically inescapable for residents, embedding order/harmony and recognition in the architecture of daily life rather than in voluntary club attendance. But the material provision functioned as an inhibiting satisfier: it over-provided on subsistence and connection while constraining autonomy/freedom (paternalistic governance set the terms), efficacy/power-to (the base had no mechanism for contesting leadership decisions), and mourning/celebration (present but increasingly instrumentalized).

The contrast with the MST sharpens what went wrong. Both movements achieved dimensional breadth, but the MST's provision emerges from shared practice (occupation, cooperative agriculture, mística) while Red Vienna's was delivered bureaucratically. The settlement school is a synergistic satisfier; the Karl-Marx-Hof was an inhibiting satisfier — material provision constraining autonomy through paternalism. The sub-organizational architecture is what produced this difference: the MST's forced cross-sector membership prevented the specialized units from professionalizing away from the base, while Red Vienna's fragmented architecture let each unit develop its own institutional logic. The depth problem and the integration problem are the same problem, seen from different angles.

Funding was genuinely independent: the progressive Wohnbausteuer (housing tax), party dues, trade union contributions, cooperative self-financing. No state dependency, no external patronage. But dependent on maintaining municipal electoral control — which made it vulnerable to the Dollfuss coup.

Governance was more complex than a simple "mobilized" label captures, and that complexity is the case's central lesson. Gulick's institutional history shows the SDAP, the trade unions, and the cooperatives forming a "threefold unity" that was gravitational rather than hierarchical: the unions held their own congresses and elected their own executive (from 1928), the cooperatives maintained genuinely self-governing boards elected by their members, and the party executive served as ultimate arbiter only in exceptional disputes. Sub-organizations were not simply party-directed. But cultural governance was different. Stern ran the Bildungszentrale with near-dictatorial control over worker libraries; Bach ran the Kunststelle under "virtually dictatorial direction." Workers' own cultural preferences (the Gasthaus, cinema, dancing, popular music) were systematically dismissed as "trash and kitsch." The congress was annual but managed through unanimity-avoidance: the 1927 congress on coalition never took a divisive vote; Vienna delegates dominated numerically and were more radical, but state delegates favoring coalition were partly silenced by closure. No recognized factions existed; the Bauer-Renner divide was managed through the unity imperative rather than contested through formal procedures. Strategic decisions were made by the directorate in closed sessions, sometimes jointly with trade-union chiefs. The organizational-legibility problem was sharp: municipal government (housing, healthcare, schools, accountable through elections) merged with party-controlled cultural institutions (appointed leadership, no base accountability), and the base could not distinguish which decisions were electorally contestable and which were set by appointees. The class divergence ran through culture rather than economics: the SDAP genuinely redistributed materially while overriding cultural autonomy, treating the working class as objects of improvement rather than as subjects of their own transformation.

The gender failure was acute. The party acknowledged the "triple burden" but addressed it with advice to "rationalize housework." Birth control was handled with profound ambivalence — Tandler's eugenic panels, refusal to distribute Reich's contraception pamphlets. The "new woman" image bore no relation to working-class women's actual conditions.

The terms of belonging were paradoxically structured — materially generous, culturally coercive. Boundary porosity was formally open (working class), and material provision was unconditional (the housing, clinics, and schools served all residents). But the cultural terms of belonging were demanding: workers whose preferences didn't match the leadership's standards were not excluded but were treated as requiring improvement — their tastes were the problem, not the institutions'. This is conditionality operating through cultural paternalism rather than through access: you could belong, but belonging meant accepting that your own cultural life was deficient. The scope was broad (working class), but the governance form meant the terms could not be contested — the base had no mechanism for making the cultural conditions of belonging an object of collective deliberation.

Destroyed by the Dollfuss coup (February 1934), but the organizational form determined how the destruction played out. The Schutzbund, founded in 1923 under Julius Deutsch (who sat on the party directorate, embodying military subordination to political authority), had no doctrine for autonomous action: mobilization required party authorization. When the party directorate hesitated on July 15, 1927, "no instructions had been received by its group leaders" and the Schutzbund was "conspicuous only by its absence." A post-July 15 resolution further centralized demonstration authorization. The structural paralysis prefigured February 1934 precisely: an armed force that could not act without authorization from a leadership that could not decide to act. Proto-metabolization was visible after 1927 as culture became a substitute for politics while the party retreated from confrontation. The postwar "social partnership" (1955+) completed what Dollfuss interrupted.

The SPD alternative culture: the professionalization trap

The SPD's alternative culture in Imperial Germany (Lidtke 1985) was the longest-running left case — decades of organizational life before 1914 — and it reveals something about what binds people to movements that the other cases confirm but that this one specifies most clearly.

A worker in Imperial Germany could spend all non-working hours within the alternative culture: singing societies, gymnastic clubs, cycling clubs, theatrical clubs, the Freie Volksbühne, 1,147 workers' libraries holding 833,857 volumes, educational associations, the Party School and Trade Union School, newspapers, consumer cooperatives, festivals, and 250+ songbooks. The sub-organizational architecture was the extreme case of specialization without integration: dozens of sub-organizations, each addressing one or two dimensions, each with its own institutional logic, connected to the party and trade union apparatus primarily through parallel affiliation rather than through cross-accountability or shared decision-making. A singing-society member was also a party member and a trade union member, but the singing society did not know what the party's Reichstag fraction was deciding, and the party apparatus did not answer to the singing society. The architecture delivered dimensional breadth precisely because the specialization was so complete — and delivered metabolization vulnerability for the same reason. The organizing dimension was identity — being Arbeiter, which functioned not as a sociological category but as an ideological symbol conferring dignity and belonging within the movement's own world. The aspirational dimension was the revolution-as-horizon.

The SPD case is distinctive because play was the strongest dimension — singing, dancing, cycling, gymnastics done for pleasure, not as instruments of political education. The MST's mística addresses several of the same dimensions (play, mourning/celebration, order/harmony) but from an autonomous symbolic universe rather than from borrowed bourgeois culture — the difference between generating order from the movement's own experience and recontextualizing the dominant culture's forms. The movement built a secular ritual system with its own temporal-symbolic order: the Arbeiter-Marseillaise as quasi-hymn, busts of Marx and Lassalle as sacred objects, an alternative calendar with May Day, Lassalle festivals, and March festivals providing the coherence that the church calendar provided for the religious. This is order/harmony through shared practice — and it worked. Connection/belonging operated through weekly club meetings where families participated together. Recognition meant being seen and valued as Arbeiter within the movement's symbolic world — a form of standing unavailable in the dominant culture, where the same worker was invisible. Subsistence came through cooperatives, understanding through libraries and schools, participation through club governance. But efficacy/power-to was weak (the "permissively directed" governance constrained genuine agency), mourning/celebration was present but instrumentalized over time, and autonomy/freedom was limited — the leadership set the cultural agenda.

Lidtke's key finding: "symbolic unity carried far more social power than did logical consistency." What bound participants was the shared ritual form — the practices, songs, festivals, and institutional routines — not ideological agreement. This mirrors the right-wing cases (experiential satisfaction screening class divergence) with a different implication: the left's emphasis on correct analysis over shared practice may be part of why it loses the competition. The ateneos and Panthers succeeded dimensionally not because participants agreed on anarchist or Marxist theory but because the organizational form addressed their daily needs.

But the commutative/non-commutative distinction reveals a deeper problem than professionalization alone. The alternative culture was "profoundly derivative" of mainstream German bourgeois culture: workers' singing societies performed the same standard male choral repertoire (Hegar, Abt, Silcher) as the German Choral League, minus the nationalist and religious texts. The Volksbühne presented the same professional theater. Poetry anthologies drew more on Goethe, Schiller, and Heine than on socialist writers (Lidtke). The "alternative" was primarily selection, exclusion, and recontextualization — the same cultural content in a different frame — a pseudo-satisfier for creation that provided the form of independent cultural life without its substance. Zetkin explicitly defended this as necessary: "every rising class finds its artistic models in the apex of the earlier development." The leadership theorized commutativity on the cultural dimension as a positive strategy while claiming non-commutativity on the political dimension. Belonging to the SPD's alternative culture produced a recontextualized relationship to German culture, not a genuinely different one — and the recontextualization was fragile precisely because the underlying content remained bourgeois. The Freie Volksbühne deliberately "divorced art from politics" (Lidtke), softening the terms of belonging: you could participate in the alternative culture's leisure dimension without accepting any political commitment — dimensional breadth purchased at the cost of political coherence.

The gender failure was structural, not incidental (Quataert 1979). The SPD women's movement was the largest women's political organization in pre-suffrage history — 175,000 party members and 223,000 in the trade unions by 1914. Before 1908, the Vereinsgesetz (banning women from political organizations) had forced the creation of separate women's infrastructure that produced genuine autonomy: women's conferences where "sensitive issues such as the unwillingness of men to support the women's cause could be raised without embarrassment," their own financial base, their own decision-making. When the law changed in 1908 and the women's movement was integrated into the party, that autonomy was destroyed — "integration cost socialist feminists freedom of action" without offsetting benefits. The central bureau became a subordinate women's bureau under the executive; the women's resolution making it a "duty" for male comrades to bring wives and daughters into the organization was diluted to merely "advising" men to enlighten their female family members. This is the Mujeres Libres dynamic operating three decades earlier: the movement wanted captación without capacitación. Within the male-dominated alternative culture, women served as auxiliaries at festivals (making coffee, decorative roles); female participation in educational courses was "particularly disappointing"; and Bebel — "a staunch champion of women's equality" — praised his wife for keeping "the small daily worries away from him." Women were recognized as supports for male political agency, not as agents in their own right.

The destruction mechanism was distinctive: the professionalization trap, visible through the satisfier typology as a systematic loss of authenticity. Organizational success undermined oppositional character. Libraries hired professional staff. Singing societies prioritized performance quality over participation — authentic play degrading into singular satisfiers for entertainment. May Day evolved from militant mourning/celebration to family entertainment. Institutional interests (staff salaries, building maintenance, membership retention) gradually displaced oppositional purpose — the satisfiers still addressed needs, but instrumentally rather than on their own terms.

But the professionalization trap was only one expression of a deeper structural problem: class divergence within the movement itself (Schorske 1955; Michels 1911). The SPD developed a triangular tension between the trade union leadership (reformist, pragmatic, organizationally conservative), the party apparatus (increasingly autonomous, bureaucratically self-interested), and the radical wing (Luxemburg, Liebknecht). Michels developed the "iron law of oligarchy" specifically from observing the SPD: "who says organization says oligarchy." The material basis was quantifiable: by 1913, the central treasury of the socialist trade unions held 88 million marks; thousands of salaried employees — secretaries, editors, regional staff, organizers — depended on the organization for their livelihood; the Party School in Berlin produced cadres selected for organizational loyalty over political radicalism (of 141 students in 1910-11, 52 were already party employees, 49 obtained party employment upon graduation). The accumulated infrastructure — funds, buildings, press, staff — created interests whose preservation took priority over the political commitments the infrastructure was supposed to serve. Michels captures the dual motive precisely: "the artist's love of the work he has created with so much labor, and also the personal interest of thousands of honest breadwinners whose economic life is so intimately associated with the life of the party." The more the movement built, the more the threat frame intensified against anyone whose actions might endanger what had been built — and this logic operated long before 1914. Engels' famous 1895 preface to Marx's Class Struggles in France — which became the founding text of reformist socialism — was written under pressure from the party leadership, who feared a militant preface would provoke the German state into reimposing the antisocialist laws. Engels later disavowed it to Kautsky: "My text had to suffer from the timid legalism of our friends in Berlin." The theoretical charter of parliamentary socialism was produced not by theoretical conviction but by organizational self-preservation — the party's means overriding its stated ends two decades before the war credits vote made the logic undeniable.

The four class-divergence mechanisms the essay identifies for the right-wing cases — domain separation, the threat frame, experiential satisfaction, cognitive framing — operated within the SPD through different channels but with structurally identical effects. The base participated for identity, connection/belonging, play, and order/harmony (the alternative culture addressed their daily needs); the leadership made strategic decisions (parliamentary alliances, colonial policy, the relationship to the state) in domains the base did not experience as "theirs." The experiential satisfaction of the alternative culture screened the leadership's political choices from scrutiny — precisely as it does in the right-wing cases. The organizational-legibility problem operated through the structural division between the alternative culture and the party-parliamentary apparatus. The base's entire non-working life was absorbed by the singing societies, cycling clubs, libraries, and cooperatives — genuinely participatory within their respective remits. Strategic decisions — parliamentary alliances, colonial policy, the relationship to the state, and ultimately the war-credits vote — were made within the party apparatus and the Reichstag fraction, units the alternative-culture participant never encountered through their participation. The alternative culture functioned as the competing-solidarities analogue of the framework's responsive end: genuine participation channeled toward domains where the consequential decisions had already been made elsewhere.

The colonial question reveals how far this divergence ran — and how the national container the alternative culture operated within shaped what the movement could see. Bauer's Chapter 6 traces the imperial mutation of the nationality principle in the decades before 1914: how socialists in the imperial powers increasingly endorsed "our nation's" dominion over others, converting the principle of national liberation into its opposite. The SPD's right wing — not the party's opponents but its own internal tendency, the faction the left today habitually calls "the right" — actively supported German colonialism as a civilizing project, arguing that colonial development would raise living standards for colonized populations and expand markets for German workers. At the 1907 Stuttgart congress of the Second International, a majority of the colonial commission voted in favor of a resolution endorsing socialist colonial policy — defeated only on the congress floor by the votes of smaller parties.^[23] The SPD's own delegation was divided, with figures like Eduard David and Ludwig Quessel arguing that socialism should improve colonial administration rather than oppose colonialism as such. This is a competing solidarity whose leadership had internalized the civilizing mission — the same legitimation mechanism the framework identifies in Cluster D — while the base sang the Arbeitermarseillaise and imagined itself part of an internationalist movement.

The base's internationalism was sincere as ideological self-understanding, but materially undercut from beneath: the domain separation was not only a product of organizational dynamics; it was structurally conditioned by the position of the German working class within the imperial division of labor. The imperial extraction that cheapened inputs for German industry simultaneously cheapened the goods German workers consumed, making their material security structurally dependent on the imperial arrangement. The 1914 vote was therefore not just organizational self-preservation and leadership betrayal; it was conditioned by a class that materially benefited from the welfare-imperialism circuit — even if this benefit was invisible to them because the national frame rendered the international extraction architecture that produced it invisible. Analyzing the SPD within a purely domestic frame misses this: the alternative culture's dimensional provision was itself materially conditioned by imperial extraction, and the "internationalism" the base sang about would have required dismantling the very circuits that funded the material security from which the alternative culture's experiential satisfaction derived. The community of fate the alternative culture built was nationally bounded by design — the shared institutions, vernacular, press, schools, and welfare provision that produced it were German, not internationalist, and the scope of the moral community followed the scope of the interactive bonds the infrastructure sustained. Internationalism as ideology could not override a community of fate whose material substrate stopped at the national border. The domain separation was complete: the base participated in the alternative culture; the leadership negotiated the terms of imperial participation.

The terms of belonging make the SPD's structural logic legible. Boundary porosity was formally open but practically constrained: the "alternative world" character meant full belonging required investing your entire non-working life in the movement's institutional universe, making exit enormously costly — you would lose not a political affiliation but a social world. The accumulated trade union treasury compounded this: the material stake in continued membership gave the organization leverage over the base that operated independently of political persuasion. Conditionality intensified as professionalization advanced: party discipline by 1914 forced even the 14 dissenters to vote publicly for war credits — the terms of belonging had hardened from "participate" to "comply." Demands included accepting the movement's German national framing: the colonial question reveals that the scope of the moral community extended only to German (or at best European) workers — colonized populations fell outside, and the movement's own right wing endorsed the civilizing mission that placed them there. The SPD case illustrates this most starkly: the accumulated infrastructure made the terms of belonging function as organizational control — the movement's means became the mechanism through which conformity was enforced and the scope of solidarity was bounded.

The SPD's trajectory also illustrates what metabolization looks like from the inside. In 1890, joining the SPD produced a fundamentally different relationship to German society than direct insertion as a worker — a different cultural world, a different temporal-symbolic order, a different community, a different identity. The mediated path diverged sharply from the direct one. By 1914, the alternative culture reproduced bourgeois forms, the organizational interests converged with state preservation, and the mediated and direct paths led to the same place: voting for war credits. The movement's name, symbols, and self-description hadn't changed; what had changed was whether membership produced a genuinely different social experience or merely a differently decorated version of the same one. This is what metabolization looks like before anyone names it: synergistic satisfiers that once produced a divergent relationship to social reality degrade into pseudo-satisfiers — the organizational forms persist (the singing, the cycling, the festivals), the experiential satisfaction persists, but what they produce is no longer a genuinely different social experience, only a differently decorated version of the same one. The pseudo-satisfaction screens the convergence from view.

The same institutional logic undermined internationalism more broadly: as Michels observed, each national party's accumulated infrastructure created interests served by organizational autonomy rather than international coordination — "international concentration is checked by the competition of the various national concentrations." The parties that were supposed to coordinate across borders to prevent war each had 88-million-mark reasons not to risk their own organizational survival for the sake of collective action.

The Weimar period completed the arc (Abraham 1981). The SPD's transition from oppositional movement to governing party constrained what it could deliver: the governing coalition depended on export-oriented industry, which meant the party's economic policy served the capital fractions whose continued investment the coalition required. When the export sector contracted in the Depression, the coalition collapsed and the party had no independent base from which to resist. Abraham calls this the "Przeworski trap" — the structural impossibility of governing within capitalism without either serving capital or being destroyed — and it is the general form of the metabolization vulnerability the essay identifies for any competing solidarity that captures the state. The postwar "social partnership" (Mitbestimmung, co-determination) completed what Weimar began: the full integration of the labor movement into the capitalist state as a subordinate "social partner," its oppositional character dissolved not through repression but through institutional incorporation.

1914 reveals the crisis in which all of these dynamics converged. In the last week of July, the SPD mobilized 750,000 people in anti-war demonstrations across Germany — over 100,000 in Berlin alone, far outnumbering the patriotic parades of the preceding days (Verhey 2000). The "enthusiastic" crowds that conservative newspapers celebrated were class-specific: educated youths, university students in Burschenschaften, a few well-to-do Bürger. "Nowhere was there evidence of any working-class participation." The working class demonstrated against the war — singing the Arbeitermarseillaise, marching to the same national sites the patriotic parades had used, staging counter-demonstrations with political content. The police rode into the crowds on horseback, drawing swords; the Kaiser wrote marginally that the demonstrations "can not be allowed" and threatened to "proclaim the state of siege and arrest all the leaders." The alternative culture's dimensional infrastructure worked: it produced 750,000 organized demonstrators embedded in a competing solidarity that addressed their daily needs.

And the leadership voted for war credits anyway. The internal vote was 96-14; party discipline required even the dissenters to vote yes. The leaders' motivations were "patriotic and 'tactical'" — they genuinely desired a German victory against Russia and hoped that supporting the war would win Prussian suffrage reform. But the institutional logic was decisive: the organizational infrastructure had become an end in itself, and its preservation (from the state repression that opposing the war would trigger) took priority over the political commitments it was supposed to serve. The base had no mechanism for contesting this — 750,000 demonstrators, and no vote. The "spirit of 1914" — the myth that all Germans had enthusiastically rallied to the nation — was constructed retrospectively, first by conservative journalists within days, then by the government as wartime propaganda, then by all parties during Weimar. It is ignorance production in real time: a class-specific, geographically concentrated, elite-led phenomenon presented as universal spontaneous popular sentiment.

The contrast with the 2003 Iraq war protests sharpens the point. Millions demonstrated across Europe — larger numbers than anything the SPD achieved. But those millions were atomized individuals gathered through ad hoc mobilization (email lists, NGO coordination, media coverage) with no institutional embedding, no organizational continuity, no dimensional infrastructure binding participants to each other beyond the moment. The protests happened, the governments ignored them, and there was no organizational form through which the base could compel a different decision — because there was no base in the organizational sense. The SPD case is more damning precisely because the infrastructure was there: 750,000 people embedded in a dimensional competing solidarity — and the mobilized governance form still gave the base no mechanism for translating sentiment into strategic decisions. Institutional embedding without governance capacity is insufficient. The infrastructure addresses needs but cannot produce a vote.

Rojava: the test case for constitutive gender

The Rojava/AANES experiment in northeast Syria (Knapp et al. 2016; Dirik 2022; Schmidinger 2018, 2019; Allsopp and van Wilgenburg 2019) is the only case in this essay where gender is constitutive of the organizational form rather than deferred.

The context: Syria's Kurdish population (~2 million, concentrated in the northeast) lived under Ba'athist Arabization policies that denied them citizenship, prohibited Kurdish-language education, and settled Arab populations on confiscated Kurdish land. The PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party), founded in 1978 as a Marxist-Leninist guerrilla movement fighting the Turkish state, maintained a presence in northern Syria through training camps and political networks. When the Syrian civil war began in 2011 and the Assad regime withdrew from the northeast to concentrate forces elsewhere, PKK-trained cadres and the PYD (Democratic Union Party, the PKK's Syrian affiliate) filled the vacuum, establishing autonomous governance beginning in 2012. The organizational template — democratic confederalism, derived from Öcalan's prison writings drawing on Murray Bookchin's libertarian municipalism — was imported by a cadre system forged through decades of guerrilla war in the mountains of southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq. This origin matters for everything that follows: the organizational capacity came from the PKK, the democratic-confederalist ideology was adopted by a cadre structure built for armed struggle, and the tension between cadre discipline and participatory governance is constitutive of the experiment.

Rojava is also the only case in this essay where a movement treats the state container as a problem rather than as the natural unit of belonging. Democratic confederalism is an explicit refusal of the nation-state form: rather than pursuing an independent Kurdish state, the movement attempts to build a non-state federal architecture that could in principle extend across existing state borders, organizing governance at the level of communes and their federations rather than at the level of a territorially bounded sovereign. Bauer's nation/state distinction is the classical precedent — he proposed non-territorial national cultural autonomy as a solution to the same problem (how can multiple national communities share a territory without reproducing the nation-state's exclusions?) — though his "personality principle" preserved the multinational empire as the host, while democratic confederalism imagines confederated communes without any such host. The move is analytically significant even where it falls short in practice: no other case in this essay has organized its entire institutional framework around the refusal of the state container itself.

The organizing dimension is protection (resistance/defense), with gender and participation as co-structuring principles through the jineolojî framework. The commune/TEV-DEM system addresses at least ten of the thirteen dimensions. Subsistence through cooperatives and oil revenue. Protection through the YPG/YPJ. Connection/belonging through commune-scale governance where participants are neighbors, not anonymous members. Recognition through co-presidency making women structurally visible — institutions literally cannot function without them — and through commune-level participation where being seen by people who know your circumstances is built into the organizational form. Understanding through educational initiatives and the jineolojî curriculum. Participation through the four-level council system (commune, neighborhood, district, canton). Creation through Kurdish-language revival after decades of forced Arabization, film communes, and women's cooperatives. Identity through the Kurdish and multi-ethnic framing. Order/harmony through jineolojî as a coherent moral framework connecting daily practice to civilizational meaning — the closest any left case comes to providing the positive alternative cosmos the right consistently offers. Efficacy/power-to through two channels: women's military effectiveness at Kobane and Sengal providing experienced collective agency, and commune decisions providing individual agency. And mourning/celebration — Newroz, martyrdom culture, Peace Mothers, the Association of Families of Martyrs — one of the few left cases where loss is ritualized rather than instrumentalized. Play is the weakest dimension: cadre discipline, self-criticism sessions, and instrumentalized creative activity suppress the experimental, improvisational mode.

The gender innovation has no precedent in the essay's other cases. Women are embedded in all normal governance through co-presidency at every level — institutions literally cannot function without a female co-chair, unlike advisory models where women's input is solicitable but ignorable. Beyond shared participation, women have autonomous initiating power: the Women's Assembly shares its decisions with the People's Assembly "without seeking the latter's approval"; family law was proposed by women's organizations and passed as binding; women can nominate to the People's Assembly leadership but cannot be nominated downward into. On patriarchal violence specifically, women have binding non-reviewable authority, enforced through women's courts and the Asayîşa Jin (women's security force). No prior left case achieved this combination of structural inclusion plus initiating power plus binding authority. The Sengal (Sinjar) case shows the template traveling across ethnic lines under genocidal conditions — Ezidi women forming autonomous structures within months.

But five sources converge on a critical qualification. The governance form is closer to mobilized than the sympathetic literature claims: commune participation is low (34%+ non-attendance in survey data), and at least 30 of 180 surveys contained comments about "opinions not being heard," with "claims that decisions were already made, that priority given to supporters, and that whether or not participants' opinions were considered depended on their personal connections" (Allsopp and van Wilgenburg). The cadre layer functions "more like Bolshevik party cells within soviets" than like facilitators of collective governance. PKK/Qandil has final say on strategic questions; councils handle "small daily administrative decisions" (Schmidinger). The organizational-legibility problem is sharp here: the commune participant governs genuinely over daily administration — water, electricity, local disputes, neighborhood coordination — but strategic decisions about military deployment, alliance formation, economic policy (including the disposition of oil revenue), and the relationship to external powers are made at the cadre level, which the commune system does not reach. The architecture is formally different from the AKP's tripartite structure or the SPD's alternative-culture/party-apparatus division, but the mechanism is analogous: genuine participation on daily matters functioning as a pseudo-satisfier for democratic governance at the strategic level, channeled toward the responsive end while consequential decisions are made elsewhere. Political pluralism is comparable to "one-party rule" — the Kurdish National Council was systematically suppressed, offices burned, chairman arrested and expelled. Ethnic inclusivity is formally robust (proportional representation, multilingualism, ethnic co-chairing) but functionally conditional — alliances are "secured by common threats and functioning military alliances" rather than ideological commitment (Allsopp and van Wilgenburg), the cadre layer is overwhelmingly Kurdish, and de-ethnicization was strategic rather than grassroots. The PYD absorbed "many opportunists" who "before 2012 had nothing to do with the Kurdish movement but had made their peace with the Ba'ath regime" — including wealthy businessman Akram Kamal Hasu as prime minister — while old PKK activists who spent years in prison "felt disadvantaged vis-à-vis these new opportunists" (Schmidinger). The terms of belonging shifted from revolutionary commitment to administrative competence.

The commutative/non-commutative distinction reveals a temporal dynamic: by February 2014, "not much of this revolutionary atmosphere was still palpable" (Schmidinger). People were "grateful to the YPG" for keeping them safe rather than politically engaged. The revolution was normalizing into a para-state before the commune system had time to consolidate — membership that initially produced a radically different relationship to social reality (revolutionary atmosphere, 2012-13) converging within months into gratitude for security provision, the relationship any population has to a competent state. The same composition logic applies to the education system: the teaching corps consists of "PYD members who get three months training" rather than professional educators (Allsopp and van Wilgenburg), meaning the composition of the education pipeline determines that ideology rather than pedagogy is transmitted. Sixteen Assyrian and Armenian church organizations rejected the curriculum and "any form of interference in the church's private schools." A September 2015 property law allowing the Administration to appropriate "vehicles, real estate, land, and cash assets belonging to Syrians who have fled" creates material consequences for exit — the terms of belonging include a cost the essay's other left cases do not impose. And mandatory conscription "caused a barrage of criticism" even from within Kurdish communities, who objected to fighting outside Kurdish areas ("a battle that is not ours to fight") — mothers of conscripted youths "repeatedly protested at YPG offices" and in one case communities "attempted to block the authorities from taking individuals for military service by forming a barrier of armed people" (Allsopp and van Wilgenburg). The population whose solidarity is locally embedded rejects the scalar extension when it requires their children to fight outside the community.

The gender innovation is real but not without contradictions of its own. Schmidinger observes that "women have formed their own female collectives, a special women's party, and finally even a women's army, all of which are fighting collectively and separately from the men and in which the women are expected to refrain from sexual relationships — one collective was simply replaced by another." Dirik documents a further complication: the movement's gender politics has produced a new form of patriarchal classification — men categorizing women as "'revolutionary/liberated' versus 'classical/traditional,' the guerrilla versus the marriable woman, the activist versus the home-maker." The cadre model's success on gender creates its own blind spot: women who do not conform to the revolutionary-ascetic template are denigrated through the movement's own categories. The Sengal (Sinjar) case illustrates the counter-dynamic: Ezidi women adopted the movement's framework but interpreted it through their own cosmology ("I believe Sitar [Ishtar] was an Ezidi woman"), and the multi-confessional Women's Assembly — Ezidi, Muslim, and Alevi women "in different uniforms, speaking different Kurdish dialects" — demonstrates how diverse composition produces different intelligibility than ethnically homogeneous cadre (Dirik).

The MST case below provides an intermediate comparison — a Gender Sector with institutional continuity but consultative rather than binding authority — but for now Schmidinger poses the question the Rojava evidence does not yet resolve: is gender constitutive of the democratic form or of the cadre form? If jineolojî is embedded in cadre discipline rather than in collectively governed practice, it might not survive the cadre system's weakening. The limitation is not that women lack power within the governance structures — they have genuine initiating and binding authority. The limitation is that the governance structures themselves operate within a framework set by the PKK cadre layer, which means everyone's participation, including women's, is bounded by cadre direction on strategic questions.

The terms of belonging expose the gap between formal and effective scope. Boundary porosity is formally high: multi-ethnic, multi-confessional, proportional representation. Conditionality of provision is formally low: communal services are not gated on political affiliation. But the cadre qualification changes both: effective participation requires accepting the PKK's strategic framework, alliances are security-driven rather than principle-based, and the KNC suppression reveals that political pluralism is bounded by cadre direction. Demands are split: for women, the terms include jineolojî participation — but this is also where the terms are most emancipatory, because women have binding authority the cadre system cannot override on gender questions. For political organizations, the demands are narrow conformity to the cadre line. The scope of the moral community is formally the broadest of any left case — but the gap between formal scope (everyone) and effective scope (those who accept the cadre framework) is the diagnostic that Schmidinger's question about whether gender is constitutive of the democratic or the cadre form ultimately rests on.

The Afrin case (Schmidinger, 2019) proves the binding external constraint: the Turkish invasion annihilated the project regardless of internal organizational quality, enabled by three geopolitical mechanisms (US-Russia sphere division, EU-Turkey refugee deal, NATO arms exports). Women's infrastructure was not merely destroyed but replaced by its inverse — co-presidency gave way to enforced hijab, forced Quran lessons for Ezidi children, and reported sexual violence. 200,000+ people were expelled and replaced by Arab and Turkmen settlers. This is not competing solidarities but colonization. No amount of internal democratic depth compensates for the absence of external military deterrence — the constraint the formula cannot solve organizationally. Rojava is the Spanish case's scalar limitation repeated under contemporary conditions: locally comprehensive, genuinely innovative on gender, and fatally unable to operate at the scale of the geopolitical forces that determine its survival. The three geopolitical mechanisms that enabled Afrin's destruction are not obstacles the commune system can address — they require organizational capacity at a scale the movement does not have and, under current conditions, cannot build.

MST: territorial decommodification and the limits of the land-based model

Brazil's Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra is the essay's only non-European, non-Middle Eastern left case, and the only one grounded in territorial control over agricultural land. Founded in 1984, the MST has settled over 450,000 families across 24 states through organized land occupation, building communities from scratch on conquered territory. Its origins lie in the convergence of three conditions: the structural displacement produced by 1970s agricultural modernization, the organizational infrastructure of the Catholic Pastoral Land Commission (CPT), and the democratization conjuncture that created political space for mass mobilization. Unlike every other left case in this essay, the MST is a rural movement in a mostly-urban analysis — and this difference is constitutive rather than incidental. The territorial base is what makes everything else possible.

The MST addresses all thirteen dimensions with at least some depth — the first left case in this essay to do so. Subsistence through cooperative agriculture and the BioNatur organic seeds network (the largest in Latin America by 2007). Protection through collective occupation and the settlement's physical presence. Connection and belonging through the occupation crucible — the encampment itself is the primary site of political subject-formation, where families who arrived as isolated individuals become part of a collective through shared hardship and governance. Recognition through the núcleo de base (10-20 families where everyone is known and everyone holds a responsibility). Understanding through the formação system: a three-tier political education architecture ranging from local study circles through regional centers to the Escola Nacional Florestan Fernandes, which trains cadres from across Latin America. Participation through consensus-based decision-making at every level, with the organizational principle that slim-majority decisions are not implemented. Creation through settlement construction, cooperative design, school creation, and cultural production. Identity as Sem Terra — constituted through struggle, not inherited. Autonomy through what the movement calls the "three fences" program: control over land, capital, and knowledge. Efficacy through the experienced collective agency of occupation, march, and land conquest. Play through the mística's performative and festive dimensions.

But the two dimensions that most distinguish the MST from other left cases are order/harmony and mourning/celebration — precisely the dimensions the cross-cutting analysis identifies as the left's weakest. The mística is a collective ritual practice, rooted in Liberation Theology but secularized (without being fully desacralized) into an organizational technology that opens every MST activity — meetings, congresses, marches, occupations, school days. It combines performative elements (songs, dramatizations, symbols, silence, bodies in movement) with historical memory (the Carajás massacre commemoration, the invocation of quilombos and the Peasant Leagues) and an aspirational horizon (comunismo libertário in the anarchist cases has its functional equivalent here in the MST's vision of reforma agrária popular). The mística generates order not by borrowing from bourgeois culture (as the SPD did) or from religious tradition alone (as the right does), but from the movement's own symbolic universe — a felt moral cosmos whose content is class struggle and whose form is collective performance. Crucially, the mística resists professionalization through structural features: the audience is the performer (no spectators), facilitation rotates, documentation is minimal, regional variation is expected, and Peloso's foundational guidelines explicitly prohibit competition, monopolization, and spectacle. The result is a synergistic satisfier that addresses mourning/celebration, order/harmony, identity, play, and creation simultaneously — and that degrades if instrumentalized. Chaves's ethnography also documents the dark side: the mística's capacity to convert grief into solidarity can also convert dissent into scapegoating, and the hierarchy can instrumentalize collective emotion against internal critics. The mechanism that produces binding also produces enforcement.

The governance form is closer to organized than any case except the ateneos. Settlement assemblies govern through consensus, with the organizational principle that slim-majority decisions are not implemented. Leadership at every level is collective, with renewable two-year mandates and no formal hierarchy above the state coordination. But the movement's dirigentes (political cadres produced through the formação system) exercise informal authority that exceeds their formal mandate — a cadre/base tension that parallels Rojava at lower intensity, less sharp because the MST lacks the PKK's military-organizational inheritance and because the settlement base has genuine exit options (leaving a settlement is costly but possible in ways that leaving a warzone is not).

The sub-organizational architecture is the MST's distinctive answer to the specialization/integration/legibility problem. Thirteen specialized sectors (education, production, health, mass front, communication, gender, youth, culture, international relations, among others) are held together through forced cross-membership at the base level: the núcleo de base (10-20 families) is the organizational atom, each núcleo has a coordinator pair (one man, one woman), and every member must hold a responsibility within one of the sectors. This is the inverse of the SPD pattern: the SPD routed each participant into one specialized sub-organization and let the architecture fragment; the MST requires every base group to have a member in every sector, so the same people circulate across the sub-organizational architecture and the sectors cannot develop divergent institutional interests without the base noticing. The depth question is answered by embedding each sector in settlement life (the school is also the community center, the cooperative is also the kitchen collective, the mística opens the assembly) rather than through professionalized delivery; the integrity question is answered by the sectors' accountability to assemblies composed of people whose lives they directly affect.

The reproduction conditions are the strongest of any left case documented in this essay. Over 2,000 settlement schools provide the education pipeline. The ENFF trains cadres from across Latin America, functioning as Via Campesina's de facto international school. Cooperative agriculture generates independent funding: the BioNatur seeds network, cooperative agroindustries, and crioula (heirloom) seed banks provide material autonomy from both the state and agribusiness. The crioula seeds are analytically significant: seed sovereignty is reproduction conditions in the most literal sense — a community that controls its own seeds can reproduce its agricultural base without market dependence, while a community dependent on purchased proprietary seeds is structurally captured by the supplier. Expressão Popular (the movement's publishing house), the Jornal Sem Terra, and over thirty community radio stations provide media infrastructure. Via Campesina membership provides transnational reach without patron dependency. And the settlements themselves are spatial anchoring — permanent territorial nodes that cannot be defunded or legislated away without physical eviction. Every reproduction condition is embedded in the territorial base rather than dependent on state funding or external patronage, which is why the deep infrastructure survived both the PT's fall and Bolsonaro's hostility.

The gender analysis places the MST as an intermediate case between the historical deferral the other left cases share and Rojava's constitutive model. The MST established a Gender Sector in the late 1990s that has institutional continuity, its own cadre training, and one major structural victory: joint land titling (INCRA Portaria 981/2003) that gives women legal co-ownership of settlement lots — a property-level intervention with no equivalent in any other left case except revolutionary land redistribution. Gender co-coordination at the núcleo level embeds parity in the organizational atom. But the Gender Sector is consultative, not constitutive: it proposes policy that the National Coordination approves or rejects. It has no binding authority, no veto, and no parallel governance structure of the kind Rojava's Women's Assembly holds. The cirandas infantis (collective childcare circles) — which were instrumental in enabling women's participation in settlement governance — arose from productive needs (cooperatives needed women's labor) rather than gender consciousness; the materialist causal chain ran from productive reorganization to reproductive reorganization to gender politics, not the reverse. Settlement life continues to reproduce patriarchal division of labor: women concentrate in education, health, and culture sectors while men dominate production, the mass front, and cooperative leadership. The MST shows that recognizing the gender problem and creating a dedicated sector are necessary but insufficient — what separates it from Rojava is the difference between advocacy within the existing form and a parallel structure that makes the form itself unworkable without women's participation.

The PT period (2003-2016) provides the essay's most detailed case of a distinctive metabolization mechanism: demand-redundancy. The PT did not absorb the MST organizationally — the movement maintained formal independence throughout, criticized government policy publicly, and continued land occupations (though at reduced frequency). Instead, the PT made the MST's core demand structurally irrelevant. The government's agricultural strategy promoted export-oriented agribusiness (which received 88% of agricultural credits) while compensating the rural poor through Bolsa Família, higher minimum wages, and expanded social security — creating alternative subsistence paths that required no years of mobilization, no occupation, no confrontation. Land occupations dropped sharply; the recruitment base contracted; MST cut its paid staff by half. Carter's epilogue documents how little it would have cost to deliver on the PT's promises: Sampaio's rejected plan required US$1 billion over three years and no constitutional changes. The PT chose agribusiness because the triple alliance (state bureaucracy, landed elite, transnational agribusiness) made land reform structurally irrational from a class-rule perspective — the same mechanism by which any state embedded in capitalist property relations will default to the path that serves accumulated capital. This is the Proletkult pattern (metabolization by a nominally sympathetic state) operating through a different mechanism: not institutional subordination but demand-redundancy, and therefore harder to resist because the movement cannot name what is happening without attacking the ally whose fall would bring something worse. The deep infrastructure — settlement schools, cooperatives, the ENFF, the seed networks — survived the PT's fall and Bolsonaro's subsequent hostility precisely because it was embedded in territory the movement physically controls, not dependent on state funding or state tolerance. Tarlau's ethnography confirms that this territorial anchoring is the decisive reproduction condition: what is built on occupied land persists; what depends on state programs does not.

Three limits qualify the MST's achievement. First, it is a rural movement whose model depends on incomplete land commodification — a semi-peripheral condition that cannot be replicated in core-country metropolitan settings where land is fully integrated into financialized property relations. The territorial base that makes everything else possible is structurally unavailable where commodification is complete. Second, the MST scales through settlement creation rather than through organizational composition across settlements: each settlement is a spatial node, but there is no mechanism for coordinating across the movement's geographically dispersed settlements at the scale of the forces it faces (international commodity markets, agribusiness lobbies, the Brazilian state). The conservative character of the agrarian reform — allocating residual, geographically marginal land — compounds this by preventing the territorial concentration that would give the movement leverage comparable to what industrial workers had in factory districts. Third, the PT trap: a friendly state that makes the core demand structurally irrelevant is harder to resist than hostile state repression, because the costs of confrontation (bringing the right back to power) are immediate while the costs of acquiescence (organizational erosion through demand-redundancy) are slow and diffuse. This is a distinct form of metabolization: not capture but obsolescence.

The cross-cutting pattern

Before the asymmetries come into focus, the structural function these competing solidarities perform deserves naming. The framework document this essay operates within states the claim explicitly: right-coded competing solidarities are the system's positive substitute for the organizational capacity it cannot safely tolerate. They deliver belonging without coordination, identity without counter-power, and efficacy without autonomy. The question is therefore not only why the right wins but why the system produces, promotes, and protects dimensional-provision forms whose structure ensures they cannot threaten it. Needs for belonging, identity, recognition, order, and efficacy cannot go unmet; if class self-organization does not provide them, something else will, and the something-else that thrives is structurally required to be compatible with the hierarchy. The asymmetries that follow are the visible consequences of that structural requirement.

Every left case achieved substantial dimensional breadth; the MST is the only left case that addresses all thirteen dimensions with at least some depth. Every left case failed on gender until Rojava, with the MST as an intermediate case showing that the range between historical deferral and Rojava's binding model is not empty. Rojava's gender innovation operates within a governance form whose participatory dimensions are shallower than the sympathetic literature claims. The right reaches the household through gendered infrastructure (however patriarchal) in every case; the historical left reached the household only through the MST's settlement governance and cirandas infantis, and even there only partially. Mujeres Libres attempted to reverse this but was denied standing.

These two findings — that the right reaches the household through gendered infrastructure in every case, and that the right's institutional accumulation produces domain separation that screens class divergence from base experience — are usually treated as parallel observations about distinct features of right-wing organizational design. They are not. They are the same defensive enclosure operating at different scales, and they have a common genealogy that runs back roughly four thousand years.^[24]

Graeber's Debt develops the underlying pattern across two chapters that are usually read separately. Chapter 7, drawing on Gerda Lerner, shows that the patriarchal pattern that came to dominate Mesopotamia between roughly 2500 and 1200 BC was not the importation of pastoralist mores but a defensive reaction to the debt-driven commodification of persons. As markets, war, and state centralization expanded, debt threatened to turn all human relations — including women's bodies — into commodities. The reaction of the (male) economic winners was to enclose their women into a household sphere whose function was to mark them as bodies that could not, under any conditions, be bought or sold. The Middle Assyrian law code (1400-1100 BC) makes the boundary explicit: respectable women must veil; prostitutes and slaves are forbidden to veil and severely punished if they do. The veil literally marks the line between bodies that are commodifiable and bodies that are not. The patriarchal household is the place where commodification stops, and women — whose enclosure constitutes the boundary — are the marker.

Chapter 9 develops a structurally parallel argument at a different scale. The world religions of the Axial Age (800 BC – 600 AD) arose concurrently with the military-coinage-slavery complex and made peace with it through an analogous move: they claimed a separate moral domain, leaving the temporal domain of markets, soldiers, and slaves to operate on its own logic. Graeber's formulation: if one social space is given over to the selfish acquisition of material things, another will inevitably emerge in which it is preached that material things are unimportant. Pure greed and pure generosity are paired concepts; charity, a concept that had barely existed before, appeared wherever impersonal cash money also appeared. Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, Jainism, and prophetic Judaism are all variations on the same defensive enclosure at the cosmic-moral level. The religious community is the place where commodification stops, and the separation between sacred and material is the marker.

The two enclosures — household and cosmos — are not analytically separable. The household is where the moral community's claims hold concretely; women whose enclosure constitutes the household are the embodied boundary; the religious community's claim to a separate moral domain is the same boundary writ large. The right-wing solidarities examined here inherit both moves at once. Hindutva's Sangh Parivar asserts patriarchal authority over women's bodies and claims a civilizational-religious sphere that confines its political claims to identity while leaving the macroeconomic order untouched. The AKP's vakıf-based welfare network rests on gendered care infrastructure and on a tripartite structure that routes participation toward sub-units where macroeconomic decisions are not made. Hezbollah's jam'iyyas hold the Resistance community together through gendered care work and through a confessional moral framework whose authority does not extend to the political-economic conditions Lebanon's working class actually faces. Christian nationalism's biblical-family order and its culture-war framing leave the political economy outside the religious community's jurisdiction. In each case the patriarchal household enclosure and the moral-domain enclosure are the same move, with the same function (marking where commodification stops) and the same four-thousand-year-old inheritance.

This reframes both findings the rest of the cross-cutting pattern develops. The right's gendered infrastructure is not an arbitrary tactical choice that happens to address the household dimension. It is the specific organizational mechanism through which the moral community's boundary is made bodily and visible — the Assyrian code's logic transposed into modern movement form. And the right's domain separation is not just an organizational technique that happens to screen class-serving decisions from the base's experience. It is the cosmic-scale version of the same enclosure, with the same function and the same historical inheritance. The three asymmetries that follow — order/harmony, mourning/celebration, recognition — are further specifications of how the enclosed moral community is built and maintained.

First, order/harmony: the right consistently offers a felt sense of moral-social cosmos — civilizational order (Hindutva), biblical worldview (Christian nationalism), the Resistance narrative (Hezbollah), "sanctified neoliberalism" (AKP). The left was not absent from this dimension — the SPD's alternative culture and Red Vienna both provided a real felt sense of moral order, and the nuclear family functioned as an assumed ordering principle across the left — but the order they provided was borrowed from bourgeois culture rather than generated from an alternative vision: respectability, cultural refinement, national belonging, in/out-group distinctions (credentialed vs. uncredentialed, respectable vs. lumpen, national vs. foreign) that reproduced the parochial sorting the left's own analysis identifies as class logic. The MST is the exception: its mística generates order from the movement's own symbolic universe rather than borrowing from bourgeois or religious sources, though it depends on territorial settlement life and no metropolitan left case has replicated it. The left historically provided order through the same mechanisms the right uses — just less comprehensively and without recognizing what it was doing, which meant the parochiality embedded in those borrowed forms went unexamined. Where the left consciously refused to build satisfiers for order (on the grounds that any order risks authoritarianism), it ceded the dimension entirely to the right. The need is real — people who experience their social world as chaotic, fragmented, or morally incoherent need order — and the gap between the left's derivative, unacknowledged order provision and the right's purpose-built satisfiers is part of what the right exploits.

Second, mourning/celebration: the right ritualizes loss and joy in every case — Ashura, church funerals, RSS festivals, the evangelical calendar. The left has May Day (which the SPD case shows was depoliticized into family entertainment) and, in the MST, the mística — the Carajás massacre commemoration, the ritualized opening of all activities, the collective performance that processes loss and celebrates achievement through the movement's own forms. But the MST's mística is the only left practice documented in this essay that addresses mourning/celebration as a permanent organizational function under collective governance. The other left organizational cultures have no ritualized ways of processing loss, marking transitions, or celebrating achievements; everything is instrumentalized — the satisfiers the left does build for mourning/celebration lose their authenticity, addressing the need as a recruitment or morale tool rather than on its own terms, which is why they do not bind.

Third, recognition: the right's organizational forms make people individually visible through dedicated roles embedded in durable institutional apparatus — the pracharak who knows your name, the home visitor, the jam'iyya network, the church community. The left's historical cases produced recognition at the intimate scale — the ateneo, the grupo de afinidad, the weekly club meeting, the housing courtyard — but through voluntary peer association rather than dedicated infrastructure, making it the first casualty of both state destruction and professionalization. What survived scaling or repression was participation without recognition.

A further asymmetry emerges on the left side: the left's own satisfiers carry destructive dimensions — different from the right's, but structurally linked to the satisfiers' effectiveness in the same way. Where the right's satisfiers demand outgroup violence that generates the threat frame screening economic accommodation, the left's satisfiers for participation characteristically destroy autonomy through the same professional or cadre layer that gives them institutional continuity: Red Vienna's cultural bureaucrats dismissing workers' taste as "trash and kitsch," the SPD's apparatus forcing even dissenters to vote for war credits, Rojava's cadre layer bounding commune participation within a framework the base cannot contest. Where the right's institutional accumulation produces domain separation, the left's produces metabolization vulnerability — the SPD's 88 million marks, Red Vienna's dependency on municipal control, the Proletkult's state funding each made the satisfiers themselves the lever through which the movement was absorbed. Where the right excludes the outgroup through escalating violence, the left excludes gender through satisfiers whose effectiveness depends on male norms of participation: the ateneo culture assuming twenty-four-hour availability, the SPD clubs where women served coffee, Rojava's revolutionary-ascetic template denigrating women who don't conform — each satisfier working for the class fraction whose reproductive labor is performed by someone else. And the SPD case reveals that left satisfiers can carry imperial destructive dimensions analogous to the right's outgroup violence: the alternative culture's material security was conditioned by imperial extraction circuits whose disruption would have required dismantling the satisfiers themselves — making the colonized population's needs structurally invisible from within the solidarity the satisfiers sustained. In each case the destructive dimension is not an organizational failure to be corrected but a structural feature of the satisfier — produced by the same mechanism that makes it experientially effective.

States destroy dimensionally comprehensive left organizations through a general pattern (Churchill): identify the dimensional infrastructure as the threat → destroy trust from within → eliminate leadership → destroy material infrastructure → delegitimate → replace with system-serving alternatives. Recognition is what infiltration and bad-jacketing specifically attack: the capacity to see and be seen truthfully within the organization. Destroy recognition and every other dimension degrades, because trust — the substrate of collective governance — requires knowing that the people around you are who they appear to be. The same logic operates whether the destroying agent is the FBI, Franco + Stalinists, or the Turkish military. The mobilized form is specifically vulnerable to this pattern; the more organized the base, the harder the pattern is to execute — which is why the Spanish case, despite its destruction, lasted longest and blocked the right most effectively where its infrastructure was densest.

What the cases reveal: trade-offs, asymmetries, and the conditions for persistence

The ten cases — four right-wing, six left — reveal a set of structural trade-offs that any movement must navigate, and a persistent asymmetry between the right and left that the tradition has not adequately theorized.

Width without depth is volatile. American Christian nationalism covers identity, connection/belonging, order/harmony, recognition, and mourning/celebration but lacks autonomous material welfare provision, making it dependent on culture-war mobilization cycles. The movement has institutional depth (the judicial ratchet) but not dimensional depth at the base level — which is why it is more volatile than movements with material hooks.

Depth without width is sectarian. Single-issue movements produce singular satisfiers — intensity on one dimension without the synergistic reinforcement that binds across dimensions. The SPD's alternative culture achieved width but its depth was derivative — borrowed from bourgeois forms rather than produced through independent cultural creation, making much of its provision pseudo-satisfiers for creation and identity. The SPD case confirms the broader pattern: what binds is shared practice, not shared analysis.

Width + depth with domestic funding → metabolization vulnerability. The AKP and Red Vienna both had wide coverage, deep integration, and substantial material provision. Both were metabolized — the AKP because capturing the state to fund welfare created the contradiction (the movement became the competition state), Red Vienna because cultural paternalism substituted for politics after 1927 and the postwar "social partnership" completed the absorption.

Width + depth with external funding → external dependency. Hezbollah avoided metabolization because Iranian funding prevented the state-capture trap. But external patronage determines regional behavior. The Proletkult illustrates the inverse: financial dependence on a nominally sympathetic state was the lever through which six-stage metabolization operated.

Width + depth with independent funding → professionalization vulnerability. The Spanish anarchists and the pre-1914 SPD both achieved independent funding (dues, mutual aid, cooperatives). Neither was metabolized from outside. Both faced internal metabolization through professionalization — the trajectory from synergistic to singular satisfiers as authenticity eroded: libraries hired staff, singing societies prioritized performance quality, May Day became a family outing. Institutional interests displaced oppositional purpose.

A second set of trade-offs concerns internal dynamics — what determines not whether the movement persists but what it becomes. These are governance form and organizational architecture trade-offs, independent of the funding variables above.

Organized governance does not automatically resist metabolization. When organizational complexity routes participation toward non-economic dimensions, internal democratization can facilitate rather than resist metabolization. The AKP case is the paradigm: the tripartite party-vakıf-municipality structure gave the base genuine democratic responsiveness on welfare, municipal services, and community organization while macroeconomic orientation fell outside any unit's participatory scope. This is the competing-solidarities analogue of devolution: genuine responsiveness channeled toward domains where class-serving decisions have already been made elsewhere.

Organized base + informal authority → unaccountable power. The Spanish anarchists' FAI illustrates a distinctive failure mode: the refusal to formalize authority does not abolish it but makes it uncontestable through formal mechanisms. The base's assembly governance was genuinely organized, but the FAI's insurrectionary adventures, the moderate/militant split, and strategic decisions about the Civil War were shaped by an informal vanguard the organized base could not reach. This is the organizational-legibility problem in its purest form: not organizational complexity distributing decisions across units, but the refusal to acknowledge authority ensuring that authority operates without structural accountability.

Organizational complexity distributes opacity. The division of labor among organizational units determines what is visible from any participatory position and what falls between units entirely. The Sangh Parivar's 36 affiliates, the AKP's tripartite structure, the SPD's alternative culture separated from its party-parliamentary apparatus, Red Vienna's merger of municipal government and party-controlled cultural institutions — each routes participatory energy toward the units that address the base's needs while concentrating class-reproduction-relevant decisions in units the base does not encounter. Some questions never appear as decisions at all because no unit's remit includes them.

Composition determines intelligibility. What the movement cannot see is determined by who composes it — regardless of governance form. The SPD's nationally framed composition ensured colonial complicity remained invisible; the CNT's male composition ensured gender remained unaddressed; the VHP's upper-caste composition rendered it unable to speak a language Dalits found meaningful at Ambedkar's memorial; Red Vienna's male leadership ensured Tandler's eugenics panels were never contested. The remedy is not better governance within the existing composition but changed composition — which is why Mujeres Libres' autonomous organization and Rojava's binding co-presidency function as epistemic mechanisms, not fairness add-ons.

The terms-of-belonging pattern. Dimensional breadth and boundary coerciveness covary across every case. Hindutva under Modi addresses more dimensions than the other three right-wing cases, and its escalation of exclusionary violence tracked its expansion of dimensional coverage — to the point of categorical exclusion of Muslims from the moral community. Hezbollah's terms are confessionally determined and non-negotiable, and its dimensional depth correspondingly deep. The left cases show the inverse: the ateneos' porous boundaries correlated with deep but spatially bounded solidarity; the SPD's accumulated infrastructure made exit so costly that it functioned as organizational control. The AKP illustrates the trajectory: metabolization traces a progressive tightening — porosity decreases, conditionality increases, demands escalate, scope narrows. The question for any emancipatory project is whether collectively governed forms can hold the tension — building bonds strong enough to outcompete while structurally resisting parochial closure.

The persistent asymmetry between right and left. The right reaches the household through gendered infrastructure in every case — AKP home visits, Hezbollah jam'iyyas, the RSS's two-circuit system, Christian nationalism's servant leadership. The historical left reached the household only through the MST's settlement governance and cirandas infantis — and even there, settlement life continues to reproduce patriarchal division of labor. Rojava is the only case where gender was made structurally constitutive — but within a governance form whose participatory dimensions are shallower than claimed. The right offers a transcendent horizon in every case — Hindu Rashtra, the Caliphate, the Kingdom of God, Make America Great Again. The left lost its aspirational horizon when the revolution ceased to function as a credible future. The right's terms of belonging are coercive but legible in every case — you know what is demanded, what you receive, and who is outside — while the left's have historically been formally open but concealing exclusionary practices (the SPD's universalism screening colonial complicity, the ateneos' openness masking gendered exclusion). The right governs through mobilized forms that screen class divergence through domain separation, the threat frame, experiential satisfaction, and cognitive framing. The left's governance forms range from organized-but-gender-blind (Spanish anarchism) to mobilized-and-patriarchal (Panthers) — neither achieving what the evidence says is needed.

The reproduction conditions asymmetry. The right's competing solidarities enjoy structurally favorable reproduction conditions across every dimension — as the cases document for apparatus, legal environment, education, media, spatial anchoring, and transnational reach alike. The left's historical cases had independent funding (the SPD's dues, the anarchists' mutual aid, Red Vienna's housing tax) but lacked nearly everything else: no education pipelines except the Ferrer schools, no media infrastructure that outlasted the political organization, spatial anchoring destroyed by the state (the barris, the union halls), and no transnational base except the International — whose coordination was undermined by each national party's institutional self-interest, as Michels documented. This is not incidental but structural: the state tolerates and subsidizes organizations compatible with class rule while destroying those that threaten it, and the infrastructure through which reproduction conditions operate reflects this selection.

A further mechanism compounds this asymmetry: civil society organizations that begin with oppositional commitments are progressively reshaped by the incentive structures they operate within — and the reshaping produces class relations within movements, not merely organizational drift. Funders — foundations, large donors, wealthy families, and corporations — actively select which organizations grow and which don't, rewarding professionalization, quantifiability, and political moderation while starving organizations that refuse those terms. Staff need credentials and career trajectories that the competitive labor market rewards — and as organizations professionalize, the credentialed professional who controls access to resources, who claims authority on the basis of expertise, and who derives income and status from an intermediary position between funders and "target populations," exercises unaccountable control over organizational policy. This is a class relation, justified by the same meritocratic reasoning that sustains class rule everywhere: the expert believes they are better qualified than volunteers or members, and the results of their decisions are cited as evidence that the expert is indispensable. Government subsidies come with reporting requirements and the implicit expectation that funded organizations will not challenge the policy frameworks that sustain them; corporate sponsors demand political respectability and measurable results. As more people are employed by professionalized organizations, the stakes of alienating any funder rise: keeping the job matters more as social safety nets erode and costs of living increase. The trajectory is consistent across sectors and organizational types — from radical grassroots collective to nonprofit status to grant dependency to mission drift to the redefinition of activism as donation — with each step rationalized by the professionals whose positions it secures. The mechanism is the same as metabolization but operates through the civil-society ecosystem rather than through state capture — the field itself selects for commutativity with the dominant logic, making oppositional organizations system-serving not through absorption but through adaptation to the conditions of their own reproduction. The institutional architecture that produces this selection (tax-exempt status for compliant organizations, subsidy frameworks, the corporatist consultative infrastructure) is itself a ratchet: once organizations have adapted to it, the adaptation constrains what they can imagine doing — not just what they do but what they think is possible.

Synthesis: what would it take?

The case studies — both right and left — converge on six requirements for a left competing solidarity that could outcompete the right's dimensional offerings while remaining collectively governed. The Max-Neef distinction introduced earlier is load-bearing here: the needs are not in dispute — they are universal, and the right addresses them effectively at the experiential level. What the left must contest is the satisfiers: the institutional forms through which those needs are met and the governance under which they operate. The six requirements that follow specify what collectively governed satisfiers require. No historical case has achieved all six. Identifying them is the point, not a counsel of despair.

A reader expecting an analysis of left movement-building to center workplace struggles, union drives, and economic demands will find this synthesis oriented differently. The orientation is deliberate. Economic organizing remains necessary — no competing solidarity persists without addressing subsistence, and no challenge to class rule can avoid the point of production — but how to organize a strike or build a union is well-studied. What is not well-studied is why movements that achieve broader forms of solidarity succeed or fail in the specific ways the cases document. The essay analyzes what the left is losing on, and it is losing on the dimensions the right organizes around — identity, belonging, order/harmony, mourning/celebration, recognition — which the left has historically treated as secondary or safely deferred. The question the synthesis addresses is not whether economic struggles matter but whether workplace-centered organizing alone can produce the durable forms of collective life that outcompete what the right builds outside the workplace. The case evidence says it cannot — and the six requirements that follow specify what else is needed.

1. Width — but width must mean dimensions addressed as experienced by all members of the class, not width for male workers with gender deferred to "after the revolution." The right addresses more dimensions than the left because it reaches the household. Width that stops at the boundary of the household is width for half the class.

2. Depth — but depth must come from shared practice, not from ideological instruction, and the satisfiers must be synergistic and authentic. What binds is the ateneo, the survival program, the workers' club — not the correct line — and what binds durably is provision that addresses needs on their own terms rather than instrumentally. Red Vienna's cultural paternalism demonstrates the trap: the SDAP provided dimensional depth through inhibiting satisfiers that dismissed workers' own cultural preferences. Depth imposed from above is not depth; it is an inhibiting satisfier that constrains autonomy while providing subsistence.

3. Favorable reproduction conditions — because persistence requires more than dimensional breadth. Independent funding (member dues, cooperatives, mutual aid) is the necessary starting point: state funding enables metabolization through claim-jumping (Proletkult), external patronage substitutes external for domestic dependency (Hezbollah), and donation dependence enables financial targeting (Panthers). But funding alone is insufficient. The right's structural advantage rests on favorable conditions across all seven dimensions. The left must build equivalents — its own education infrastructure, its own media, its own spaces, its own generational reproduction mechanisms — under conditions where the state is actively hostile to all of these, rival movements on the same field may be competing for the same base, and external allies come with conditions that can reshape or destroy the movement's autonomy (the Comintern pattern). No historical left case has solved this durably; the RSS's self-built infrastructure (from public parks and unpaid cadre labor) is the closest model for building without inherited wealth, though it operated with state tolerance the left will not receive.

4. Organized governance with contestable terms of belonging — because only organized forms produce the capacity for the base to notice and contest class divergence within its own leadership, to resist gendered domination within the movement, to survive leadership targeting by the state, and to keep the terms of belonging from hardening into parochial closure. The right's terms of belonging are coercive but legible — you know what is demanded and what you receive. The left's historical cases show the opposite failure: formally open terms that concealed exclusionary practices (the SPD's universalism screening colonial complicity, the anarchists' openness masking gendered exclusion, Red Vienna's material generosity coexisting with cultural coercion). Organized governance is the precondition for terms that can be contested from within — which is what prevents the emancipatory project from reproducing the parochial logic it opposes. The mobilized form is specifically vulnerable to COINTELPRO-style destruction because leadership targeting can hollow out a structure the rank and file cannot contest. But "organized" must include mechanisms for handling multiple axes of subordination simultaneously — the Mujeres Libres predicament (autonomy denied, absorption offered) is what happens when the organizational form cannot hold gender and class together. Rojava's solution (binding women's veto, co-presidency, autonomous women's organizations with initiating power) goes further than any other case in the essay, but its institutional independence from the cadre system is not yet demonstrated.

5. Confronting organized violence — the constraint the formula cannot solve organizationally but cannot avoid. The left's structural problem is not that it lacks a military shield against external attack. It is that it operates within a system whose ruling classes will deploy unlimited organized violence — internal and external — rather than permit the left to control the state and its coercive apparatus. WWI is the paradigm: the ruling classes of multiple countries chose to feed millions of workers into industrial slaughter rather than risk the cross-border class solidarity that was building. The Indonesian massacre of 1965-66, Chile 1973, the Turkish coup of 1980, COINTELPRO, the Dollfuss coup against Red Vienna, Franco's destruction of the barris — the logic is consistent across contexts and scales. Capital will accept any cost, including the destruction of its own accumulation base, rather than permit the left to hold state power. The Afrin case proves the point in its most extreme form: women's infrastructure not merely destroyed but replaced by its inverse. Every case in this essay — right and left — confirms that the "field cleared by violence" is not incidental but structural: the institutional architecture of class rule includes organized violence as its ultimate guarantee, and every left project that approaches the state question triggers it. The organizational formula can address everything else — width, depth, funding, governance, gender, professionalization — but it cannot address this without confronting the question of state power, and confronting the question of state power is what triggers the unlimited response. This is not an argument for or against any particular strategic orientation toward the state. It is a recognition that no left competing solidarity can avoid the question, and that the history of what happens when the left does confront it — from the Paris Commune through the Russian Revolution through Chile to Rojava — is the history the tradition must learn from rather than repeat.

6. Professionalization resistance — structural mechanisms preventing the emergence of class relations within the movement itself. The problem is not merely that institutional interests diverge from the movement's purpose (the SPD's professionalization trap, Red Vienna's cultural bureaucratization, the Proletkult's instrumentalization) — the satisfier typology names this precisely as the trajectory from synergistic to singular satisfiers, from authentic to instrumental provision. The deeper problem, as the companion essay on NGOification develops, is that professionalization produces a new class of intermediaries whose material interests — income, status, credentials, career trajectories, networks, the experience of being the person who decides — are served by maintaining the intermediary position. Term limits, rotation, recall, and limits on professionalization are necessary but will be resisted as class interests, not merely as practical inconveniences. The mechanism must therefore be structural (base control over institutional priorities, de-skilling of professional functions, independent funding that doesn't select for commutativity) rather than ideological (exhortations to remain revolutionary), because ideological commitment decays under institutional pressure and the intermediary class has material reasons to resist structural change. Piven and Cloward's finding — that formal organization tends to dissipate disruptive power — can be countered only by what McAlevey calls organizing (where the base develops its own analysis and leads escalating action) as opposed to mobilizing (where staff direct supporters). The decisive variable is the presence of a politically conscious core embedded in the membership — a "militant minority" capable of sustaining an organizing culture between upheavals and preventing the substitution of professional staff for member agency. The Chicago Teachers Union provides the proof case: a rank-and-file caucus (CORE) captured a hollowed-out union through internal elections and transformed it through deep organizing — systematic identification of organic leaders in every school, building relationships with parents and communities through teachers' own networks, escalating structure tests — and within two years conducted a nine-day strike that defeated a powerful Democratic mayor. The organizational infrastructure survived the strike because it was rooted in the membership's own social relationships, not in a professional apparatus. But the counter-case is equally instructive: the police and guard unions (PBA, COBA) that outcompeted the prison reform NGOs in New York did so by offering their members direct defense of autonomy, control, and the experience of exercising non-reciprocal power over others — a competing solidarity whose dimensional provision includes domination as a core benefit, defended through wildcat strikes, bridge blockades, and in 1992 a full-blown race riot at City Hall. Professionalization resistance is not inherently emancipatory; it depends on what the non-professionalized organization is defending. The professionalization dynamic is most acute in metropolitan settings where associational erosion and the commodification of care have destroyed the non-work institutional infrastructure that once gave working people room to organize, and where the competitive labor market forces everyone — including activists — into credential-seeking and career-building that aligns their personal interests with the professionalized model. The eighth starting point below develops the material-conditions point in full.

The six requirements operate under a material constraint the cases make visible but the requirements do not name: the degree of commodification of the domains the movement needs to operate in. The MST achieves what the metropolitan left cases cannot partly because the land base is decommodified through occupation — physically removed from the commodity form that would otherwise subject it to the same market discipline that hollowed out the SPD's cooperatives and made Red Vienna's municipal infrastructure dependent on state power it could not hold. The ateneos operated in barris whose economy had not yet been fully commodified. Every metropolitan case that failed was operating in a more deeply commodified environment, where building non-commodified satisfiers means actively working against a commodification sequence that progressively restructures the domain's internal practices. The deeper the commodification of a domain, the more the organizational work required to produce synergistic satisfiers in it — because the materials out of which collective practice is built (time, space, skills, relationships, care) have themselves been captured by commodity forms. This is why the MST's territorial model cannot be replicated in core-country metropolitan settings through organizational design alone: the territorial base that makes everything else possible is structurally unavailable where commodification is complete, and metropolitan left movements face the additional constraint that the non-work social infrastructure through which organizing historically occurred (pubs, chapels, friendly societies, neighborhood associations) has itself been enclosed by the same commodification sequence. The six requirements are necessary regardless of context; what the degree of commodification determines is how much material resistance each requirement meets.

Marx identified the underlying challenge in the 1844 Manuscripts, in his critique of "crude communism" — the communism that merely universalizes private property rather than overcoming the reduction of human life to having. Such a communism, he wrote, is "the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilization" — a revolution that changes the distribution of goods without addressing the impoverishment of human existence that the system of private property produces.^[25] A class politics organized exclusively around wages and ownership risks being the strategic expression of exactly this narrowing.

The case studies give this philosophical point empirical teeth. The right builds forms of social life that address what Marx called the impoverishment of human existence — identity, belonging, meaning, purpose, transcendence — while serving class rule. The left has historically addressed material impoverishment while ceding the other dimensions to the right. The revolutionary task is not the addition of "cultural work" alongside trade union work but a form of organization that addresses multiple dimensions under collective governance — because dimensional breadth under hierarchical control is precisely what the right already provides. The right's achievement is not that it reconnects what class rule separates; it is that it builds satisfiers that address real needs — effectively, at the experiential level — under governance whose structural function serves class reproduction. The experiential effectiveness is what makes it bind: the base stays because the satisfiers deliver on the dimensions the base participates for, and domain separation ensures that the class-serving decisions happen in dimensions the base does not experience as theirs. But the satisfiers are also partly destructive in Max-Neef's sense — addressing some dimensions while undermining others, for the outgroup and for the base itself. The outgroup violence that deepens belonging destroys protection and autonomy for those outside the moral boundary. The economic policies the governance pursues — privatization, neoliberal accommodation, anti-union legislation — erode the base's own material conditions. And the terms of belonging escalate demands: from everyday conformity through cultural policing through participation in communal violence through willingness to fight and die — the Hezbollah base deployed to Syria in a war it initially opposed, the Hindutva base enrolled in pogroms that produce retaliatory cycles, the Christian nationalist base mobilized toward insurrection. The effectiveness and the destructiveness are structurally linked: outgroup violence generates the threat frame that screens economic accommodation, and economic deterioration makes the identity provision indispensable. The left's task is not to dismiss or replace the needs — they are universal — but to build different satisfiers: institutional forms that match the experiential effectiveness without the destructive dimensions that both the right's and the left's historical satisfiers have carried — outgroup violence, self-undermining economic governance, autonomy destruction through paternalism or cadre discipline, gender exclusion through satisfiers designed around male norms, and the metabolization vulnerability that institutional accumulation produces.

This task operates not only at the institutional level but at the interpersonal one. The separation is maintained daily by the micro-level dynamics through which workers exercise power over one another: the manager who claims subordinates' work, the credential-holder who derives authority from artificial scarcity, the father who commands the household, the parent who exercises unaccountable authority over children, the gatekeeper who polices access to social spaces. These are not incidental features of class society; they are the interpersonal face of the same separation — individual workers deriving concrete use values from class relations, and thereby becoming bound to class rule through mechanisms the tradition's focus on commodified exploitation has left untheorized. The companion piece develops this argument in greater detail. Building collectively governed forms of social life means confronting these dynamics within and through the organizations we build — not as secondary "cultural" issues to be addressed after the revolution, but as concrete forms of class rule that must be challenged in the present. The Panthers' case makes this vivid: the gendered coercion/care division operating inside the party reproduced the very separation the survival programs were designed to overcome.

For the Marxist tradition specifically, this implies a reorientation. The theory of social reproduction, as developed by feminist Marxists from Vogel through Bhattacharya, has already opened the door by insisting that the reproduction of labor-power cannot be reduced to an economic process. The anthropological evidence extends the scope of that claim further than the feminist tradition has typically drawn it. The issue is not only that care work is undervalued and exploited, but that the entire fabric of human social existence has been reorganized by class logic into separate institutional domains that address real needs in class-structured and partial ways. Any revolutionary strategy that does not address that reorganization will generate competing solidarities as predictably as scarcity generates hoarding. The question is not whether the working class "can" be united — it is whether the movement offers a form of life that addresses what people actually need, under governance they actually control, with a horizon that makes the struggle meaningful. That is a materialist question, not a motivational one: the conditions of reproduction shape the possibilities of solidarity.

Conclusion

The persistence of competing solidarities is not evidence that the working class "cannot be united." It is evidence that classed societies reorganize social life in ways that undermine the conditions on which durable solidarity depends, that the right has learned to exploit this reorganization with considerable sophistication, and that the left has not yet built the forms of collective life that could outcompete it.

The argument developed here rests on four claims: that human social functioning depends on coalitionary egalitarianism, which produces collectively governed practices addressing multiple needs simultaneously; that classed societies remove collective governance over how social reproduction is organized, locking whatever separations material conditions produce into institutional domains under class-structured control; that the diagnostic vocabulary developed here — the needs-dimension framework (drawing on Max-Neef and Rosenberg), together with the organizing dimension, the aspirational dimension, the governance-form spectrum (including the organizational-legibility problem — which unit decides what, and what falls between units entirely), the reproduction conditions that determine which solidarities persist, and the terms of belonging that determine who is included on what conditions — helps specify why certain formations on the contested field outcompete others; and that the case evidence, drawn from both the right and the left, specifies what would be required to build left alternatives that could compete.

The organizational analysis operates within a systemic architecture the companion framework document develops: the welfare-imperialism circuit that funded metropolitan welfare through imperial surplus extraction and whose erosion is producing the gaps competing solidarities now fill; the institutional ratchet (fiscal rules, central bank independence, treaty constraints) that locks in class-serving configurations and constrains what any movement can deliver once it engages with state power; form-switching as systemic agency — the system actively reconfiguring its extraction architecture to incorporate, redirect, or neutralize challenges rather than passively absorbing them; and the four legitimation modes (active justification, accommodation, foreclosure, endogenous generation) through which compliance is produced at macro, meso, and micro levels simultaneously — with competing solidarities operating primarily through accommodation, providing enough of what people need that contesting the class-serving function feels less urgent than losing the provision. The organizational level and the systemic level are not separate analyses but two faces of the same problem: the mediating configuration that produces a particular imperial form simultaneously produces the competing-solidarities landscape within which any left project must operate.

Competing solidarities are material forms of social organization, backed by real institutional resources and real enforcement, addressing real needs whose governance the left has historically failed to contest. They will not be dislodged by appeals to the "true" class interest.

The standard explanations identified in the opening each miss something specific. False consciousness misses the distinction between needs and satisfiers — and between satisfier types. The binding dimensions are addressed through synergistic satisfiers that are experientially effective; the dimensions where the base is shortchanged are addressed through pseudo-satisfiers (symbolic recognition without redistribution, pseudo-autonomy through spiritual reframing) or not at all. People stay because the synergistic dimensions work, not because they are deceived about the pseudo ones. Ideological hegemony misses that the binding operates primarily through organizational form — dimensional breadth, governance architecture, reproduction conditions — not through persuasion; the cases show that ideological coherence matters far less than shared practice, and that experiential satisfaction screens class divergence without anyone needing to produce or consume a justificatory ideology. The labor aristocracy thesis identifies a real mechanism but too narrowly: workers derive use values from class relations not only through imperial extraction and value regime arbitrage, but also through credential-based status, gendered authority, and the micro-level advantages the companion essay develops — and competing solidarities are the organizational forms through which these are experienced and defended. The biological and anthropological foundation developed in the first half specifies why these mechanisms operate at the depth they do: coalitionary egalitarianism means that collectively governed, multidimensional social practice is not a preference but a precondition for human social functioning. What class rule disrupts and what competing solidarities partially restore are the same thing — which is why the right's provision binds so deeply, and why the left cannot outcompete it by offering correct analysis in place of collectively governed satisfiers that address what people actually need.

The revolutionary task is this. Build synergistic, collectively governed satisfiers — forms of collective life that authentically address the full range of needs the right already addresses under class-structured governance — subsistence, protection, connection, recognition, understanding, participation, play, creation, identity, autonomy, order, efficacy, mourning and celebration. Do so under the collective governance of the people doing the reproducing, with the organizational depth that comes from shared practice rather than correct analysis. Build reproduction conditions — independent funding, education pipelines, media infrastructure, spatial anchoring — under conditions where the state is actively hostile to all of them. Govern in ways that resist both external destruction and internal professionalization — and ensure that the organizational architecture does not reproduce the responsive-to-rigid dynamic internally, routing participation toward units where consequential decisions have already been made elsewhere. Make the terms of belonging actively inclusive — open enough to resist the parochial closure that every case shows dimensional breadth tends to produce, clear enough to sustain the bonds that make the solidarity durable, and structured so that the terms themselves can be contested from within rather than hardening into new exclusions. Offer a horizon worth struggling for. And do all of this on a competitive field where rival movements, hostile states, and external patrons each reshape what is possible.

No case has achieved all of this. The Spanish anarchists went furthest on governance and independent funding; Red Vienna on width and material depth; Rojava on gender; the MST on reproduction conditions, mourning/celebration, and all-thirteen-dimension coverage. The MST is ongoing, having survived both the PT's demand-redundancy and Bolsonaro's hostility, though under material conditions the eighth starting point above shows cannot be replicated where commodification is complete. Each case succeeded where the others failed, and each failed where the others succeeded.

This should concern anyone who takes the left's project seriously. The right is winning this competition globally — Hindutva in India, Christian nationalism in the United States, Islamist movements across the Middle East, authoritarian populisms in Europe and Latin America — and it is winning precisely because it addresses what people actually need through organizational forms the left has not learned to match. Every cycle of neoliberal restructuring widens the gap between what the state provides and what people require, and every widened gap is filled by organizations whose dimensional breadth serves class reproduction. The trend is accelerating, not stabilizing. The social forms historically characteristic of the Global South — informality, surplus populations, exploitation without organized labor forces, fragmented urban space — are expanding toward the center rather than converging toward welfare-state homogeneity, which means the conditions under which competing solidarities thrive are becoming universal rather than residual. The window for building left alternatives is closing as the terrain shifts toward conditions structurally favorable to the right. And the left's typical response — better analysis, sharper critique, more correct positions — does not address the problem, because the problem is not analytical but organizational: the left does not build forms of collective life that can compete. Without theorizing why, it will keep building organizations that lose to the same mechanisms the cases document, and it will keep attributing the losses to false consciousness, ideological hegemony, or insufficient radicalism rather than to the structural mismatch between the satisfiers it builds and what people actually need.

But the current landscape is not uniquely hostile — and treating it as such understates what the original workers' movements faced. The original workers' movements built their dimensional infrastructure — the trade unions, the alternative culture, the cooperatives, the mutual aid networks — in a pre-welfare-state landscape: no public education, no public healthcare, no labor protections, no social insurance. They built from scratch under state repression far worse than what the contemporary left faces in most metropolitan societies today. Three differences between that landscape and the current one matter, and they cut both ways. First, the need-gaps neoliberal restructuring creates are contested terrain, not territory the right has already won. The right fills those gaps where the left does not — but the restructuring does not automatically select for right-wing forms; it selects for whoever builds dimensional infrastructure in the spaces the state has abandoned, and the right's current dominance reflects organizational failure on the left, not structural impossibility. Second, the population that experienced public provision and lost it is a different organizing base from one that never experienced it — historical memory of what was possible is a political resource the nineteenth-century movements did not have. Third, conditions that are genuinely harder on some axes — deindustrialization has destroyed workplace concentration, spatial dispersal undermines neighborhood-based organizing, the professionalization ecosystem absorbs oppositional energy, and the right already occupies much of the field — coexist with conditions that are genuinely more favorable: communication technology enables coordination at scales the Second International could not achieve, women's participation in public life is orders of magnitude greater, and two centuries of organizational failure provide negative knowledge about which forms work and which do not. The claim is not that building is easy. It is that the restructuring produces contested terrain — and that framing the current landscape as a closing window, without specifying what has changed and what hasn't since the original movements built theirs, risks converting a difficult but navigable problem into an excuse for organizational paralysis.

The analysis does, however, suggest where to look for inroads. Eight starting points follow from the case evidence.

First, organize on the basis of programmatic unity. Lidtke's finding — "symbolic unity carried far more social power than did logical consistency" — and the ateneo model both indicate that shared practice builds solidarity more effectively than ideological agreement. The organizational basis should be a shared program — agreement on what to build and how to govern it — not alignment on which analysis of capitalism is correct. Mutual aid, cooperative childcare, cultural creation, collective governance of actual material needs: these are synergistic satisfiers — each activity addressing multiple dimensions simultaneously — and they produce the dimensional breadth and experiential depth that bind. The inroad is to build organizations around what people need and govern them collectively, not to recruit people to a political line and then wonder why they leave.

Second, reach the household. Every right-wing case reaches the household through gendered infrastructure — the home visit, the jam'iyya, the two-circuit system, servant leadership. The historical left never did, except Mujeres Libres and Rojava (each with the limitations the case studies document). Any left strategy that does not address the site where social reproduction actually happens is width for half the class. The guarderías volantes model — sending volunteers into homes so women could attend meetings, inverting the right's direction of household penetration — remains the most promising template.

Third, build reproduction conditions from the start. The left typically builds dimensional provision without building the conditions for its persistence — and then loses when the organization is destroyed or professionalizes. Education pipelines, media infrastructure, spatial anchoring, and independent funding are not afterthoughts; they are what determines whether what you build survives. The RSS case discussed in requirement three shows that building from nothing is possible even without inherited wealth, though under conditions of state tolerance the left will not receive.

Fourth, defend what exists — but know what you are defending. The "field not cleared" finding is directly actionable: where left infrastructure exists, the right cannot establish itself. The barris blocked the Falange. CPI-M areas blocked Hindutva penetration. Every ateneo, every mutual aid network, every workers' club, every cooperative is contested terrain whose loss clears the field for the right. But the SPD case shows the other side of this principle: defending accumulated infrastructure can become the rationale for organizational conservatism — the 88 million marks that made the war credits vote structurally overdetermined. The question is whether what you are defending still produces non-commutative solidarity — whether membership still generates a genuinely different relationship to social reality — or has become the institutional form through which metabolization operates. Defend the dimensional provision and the spatial infrastructure; reform or replace the organizational form when it no longer serves its purpose.

Fifth, close the recognition gap. The right's recognition infrastructure operates through dedicated roles — the pracharak who knows your name, the home visitor who sees your family's situation, the jam'iyya that functions as a second home — embedded in institutional apparatus that persists across political cycles. The left's historical cases produced recognition through intimate peer association (the ateneo, the grupo, the weekly club), but these forms were the first casualties of state destruction and professionalization, and what replaced them does not produce recognition at all. People who are seen stay; people who are processed leave. The structural challenge is building recognition infrastructure that survives scaling and institutional pressure — dedicated roles accountable to the base, not volunteer associations that dissolve when conditions tighten.

Sixth, make the organizational architecture legible. Every case — left and right — shows that organizational complexity distributes opacity: the base participates through units that address their needs without seeing what is decided elsewhere or what is not decided at all. The AKP's selective democratization, the SPD's alternative-culture/party-apparatus division, and Rojava's cadre/commune separation all reproduce the responsive-to-rigid dynamic internally. Any left form that distributes functions across multiple units needs structural mechanisms — cross-unit accountability, base-level visibility into economic policy, explicit assignment of all domains to deliberative bodies — that prevent the architecture from screening consequential decisions from collective governance.

Seventh, solve the scalar problem. Every left case in this essay built dimensionally comprehensive solidarity locally and was destroyed by forces operating at a scale the local form could not reach — Franco's army backed by German and Italian power, the Dollfuss coup, COINTELPRO, the Turkish invasion of Afrin. The barris could not contest the geopolitical alignment that enabled their destruction; the Rojava communes cannot contest the US-Russia sphere division that permits Turkey's operations. Local solidarity without organizational capacity at the national and international scale is solidarity waiting to be destroyed. But the historical attempts at scale — the Second International, the Comintern, the postwar social-democratic internationals — all failed in the same way, and through the same mechanism the fourth starting point identifies: each national organization's accumulated infrastructure created interests served by organizational autonomy rather than international coordination — defending what existed locally became the rationale for refusing the coordination that would have made the local defensible. The communists made the complementary error of assuming that scale could be achieved through party discipline and central command, without the locally embedded infrastructure that produces durable solidarity — and then discovered, after every seizure of state power, that the solidarity the cadre form could not produce had to be manufactured through coercion or abandoned. The scalar problem is not a choice between local depth and global reach; it is the question of how to compose locally rooted, dimensionally comprehensive solidarities into coordinated action at the scale of the forces they face, without either subordinating the local to a center (the Comintern pattern) or leaving the local defenseless (the anarchist pattern).

The scales at which this composition must operate are not identical, and the distinction matters. The state is the scale at which the enforcement apparatus most movements confront operates — courts, police, taxation, legal architecture — and organizing at any scale below it cedes the terrain to whoever controls it. The nation, in Bauer's sense of the cultural-communicative community of character, may coincide with the state or may cut across it: Kurds across four states, diasporas in the metropole, multinational states whose communities of fate do not match their borders. Capital operates at a scale that systematically exceeds both, which is the original reason the Second International existed. The task is to distinguish what must be built at the scale of the state apparatus (because that's where enforcement happens), what can be built at sub- or trans-state scales (because communities of fate are not always coextensive with state borders), and what must be coordinated at the scale of capital without being captured by a centralizing coordinator. The two failures the previous paragraph names — accepting the state container as the natural unit (SPD 1914) and subordinating local infrastructure to a transnational center (the Comintern) — are both consequences of treating these scales as if they were one.

Eighth, name the material conditions that determine which of these starting points are available. The seven points above are strategies. Their feasibility depends on conditions the strategies themselves cannot produce — specifically, on the degree to which daily life has been commodified in the terrain where organizing takes place. Three routes to building the territorial and material base for dimensionally comprehensive solidarity can be distinguished, each available under different conditions.

The first route is occupation against the state: the MST and the Zapatistas demonstrate what is achievable when land has not been fully brought under the imperative of competition. Incomplete land commodification — a semi-peripheral condition — makes territorial decommodification possible: settlements can partially withdraw from the commodity circuit, producing their own food, governing their own communities, educating their own children, and building the full range of reproduction conditions on controlled territory. The MST is the only left case in the essay that addresses all thirteen dimensions, and its reproduction conditions are stronger than those of any other left case examined, precisely because the territorial base allows the movement to build outside the commodity circuit.

The second route is occupation of abandoned space: capital flight, deindustrialization, and state withdrawal produce zones — the American Rust Belt, deindustrialized urban peripheries, the "far hinterland" Neel documents — where land becomes available not through occupation but through neglect. Property values collapse, state services withdraw, population drops, and what remains is a kind of involuntary decommodification. But abandoned space does not automatically produce organizational capacity. The Endnotes collective's analysis of Ferguson and Baltimore shows that surplus-population status creates dependence on the state's repressive apparatus, destroys the demographic base (Ferguson has 60 Black men per 100 Black women), and leaves the void to be filled by whoever gets there first. Neel documents the far right already building through "competitive control" — providing disaster preparedness, community watches, and parallel governance in spaces the state has abandoned. Route two is structurally easier in settler-colonial nations with large surplus territory (the United States, Canada, Australia) than in high-density European or East Asian contexts where land stays contested even in decline. And it requires residual organizational infrastructure or external resource infusion to activate — it does not arise spontaneously from neglect.

The third route is construction within the commodity circuit: McAlevey's deep organizing, member-funded cooperatives, mutual aid networks, and the workplace leverage that comes from withholding labor. This is the only route available in most core-country metropolitan settings where the left's analytical energy concentrates. It is also the most constrained. The McAlevey reanalysis shows that whole-worker organizing addresses seven of thirteen dimensions (subsistence, protection, connection, recognition, participation, efficacy, understanding) but systematically misses the six the right dominates: order/harmony, mourning/celebration, play, creation, deeper autonomy, and identity beyond the workplace. The MST achieves these through territorial settlement life — the mística, the settlement school, the cooperative, the cultural production that emerges from shared land. Without territorial control, route three has no demonstrated mechanism for reaching comparable dimensional breadth.

The degree of commodification of daily life is the variable that determines which routes are available. Where land is not fully commodified (semi-periphery), route one is available and produces the strongest results. Where capital has fled and the state has withdrawn (far hinterland, deindustrialized cores), route two is available in principle but requires conditions the abandonment itself may have destroyed. Where daily life is fully commodified (metropolitan core), only route three is available — and it is the route with the least evidence of achieving the dimensional breadth the essay argues is necessary. The seven starting points above are route three strategies. The MST case demonstrates what is possible under route one conditions. The honest implication is that the question of how to achieve comparable dimensional breadth under route three conditions — the conditions under which most of us organize — is the question this essay does not resolve.

But the three routes describe territorial conditions; there is a prior condition they share. Every successful case in this essay — left and right — operated in a social landscape where communal sociality had not been fully displaced by commodified private life. The SPD alternative culture filled a void in workers' leisure that commercial entertainment had not yet colonized (Lidtke). The ateneos functioned as the social center of barris where recent rural migrants preserved communal habits and private alternatives were scarce (Ealham). Red Vienna's complexes physically prevented atomization through architectural design — shared courtyards, laundries, kindergartens (Gruber). The Proletkult's 400,000 participants occupied a cultural landscape with almost no competing private entertainment infrastructure. The right-wing cases operate in societies where communal sociality remains structurally present: the mosque and coffeehouse in Turkey, the shakha and neighbourhood temple in India, the confessional community in Lebanon. The MST's settlements are themselves communal environments by construction. The pattern suggests that competing solidarities — left or right — depend not only on territorial and material conditions but on the survival of social habits of communal gathering, mutual visibility, and shared time that deep commodification of leisure systematically destroys. The companion essay on imperial forms develops the mechanism: class rule encloses the reproductive fabric by fragmenting collective sociality into institutional domains it controls, destroying the "joking body" (Graeber) that collective festivity sustained and replacing it with the privatized household. Competing solidarities could only fill their current role — fragmenting class unity by addressing needs class organizations do not — because the prior form of collective solidarity organized around shared bodily pleasure and egalitarian sociality had already been destroyed.

This operates differently across contexts and should not be overgeneralized. American-style suburbanization (car-dependent sprawl, spatial separation of all life functions, private entertainment filling all non-work time) represents a particularly thorough erosion of communal substrate, and the Endnotes collective's "History of Separation" documents how this was engineered through state policy rather than produced by market forces alone. European cities retain walkable neighbourhoods and denser social infrastructure, but the communal habits those spaces once supported are eroding from within: the neighbourhood bar or the regular hangout that once provided incidental sociality without organizational effort is disappearing even where the physical infrastructure persists, workplace fragmentation means people in the same street rarely share an employer or even an industry, and screen-based private entertainment competes with every form of communal gathering for the time people have left after work. High-density East Asian contexts face a different version: physical proximity coexists with extreme work hours and deeply commodified leisure. The condition is not uniform, and understanding it requires context-specific analysis rather than a universal claim about "late capitalism." But the general finding holds: the communal substrate on which any competing solidarity depends is being eroded across the core, and any route-three strategy that ignores this is building on ground that is being actively dissolved beneath it.

None of this is sufficient. The constraint that requirement five names — that ruling classes will deploy unlimited organized violence rather than permit the left to hold state power — is not addressed by organizational design. But the cases show that organizational design determines whether the left is even in a position to confront that constraint. The task is not to copy any historical case but to learn from all of them — and to build forms of collective life whose integration is comprehensive enough, whose governance is collectively controlled enough, whose inclusivity is structurally maintained enough, and whose aspirational horizon is compelling enough to outcompete the class-structured alternatives that currently win.

Bibliography

Abraham, David. The Collapse of the Weimar Republic: Political Economy and Crisis. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.

Ackelsberg, Martha A. Free Women of Spain: Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991.

Allsopp, Harriet, and Wladimir van Wilgenburg. The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts. London: I.B. Tauris, 2019.

Ames, Kenneth M., and Herbert D. G. Maschner. Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. London: Thames and Hudson, 1999.

Andersen, Walter K., and Shridhar D. Damle. The RSS: A View to the Inside. New Delhi: Penguin Viking, 2018.

Bacchetta, Paola. Gender in the Hindu Nation: RSS Women as Ideologues. New Delhi: Women Unlimited, 2004.

Bauer, Otto. The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy (1907). Translated by Joseph O'Donnell. Edited by Ephraim J. Nimni. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.

Bever, Edward. The Realities of Witchcraft and Popular Magic in Early Modern Europe: Culture, Cognition and Everyday Life. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

Bitton, Daniel. Multipart critique of Graeber and Wengrow. What is Politics, YouTube channel.

Boehm, Christopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Boehm, Christopher. Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame. New York: Basic Books, 2012.

Araújo, Djacira. Pedagogia Do Movimento Sem Terra e Relações de Gênero. São Paulo: Editora Lutas Anticapital, 2019.

Glymph, Thavolia. Out of the House of Bondage: The Transformation of the Plantation Household. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Bookchin, Murray. The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868–1936. New York: Free Life Editions, 1978.

Bradshaw, G. A. Elephants on the Edge: What Elephants Teach Us About Humanity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.

Briggs, Robin. Witches and Neighbours: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.

Bradshaw, G. A., Allan N. Schore, Janine L. Brown, Joyce H. Poole, and Cynthia J. Moss. "Elephant Breakdown." Nature 433 (2005): 807.

Cammett, Melani. Compassionate Communalism: Welfare and Sectarianism in Lebanon. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014.

Carter, Miguel, ed. Challenging Social Inequality: The Landless Rural Workers Movement and Agrarian Reform in Brazil. Durham: Duke University Press, 2015.

Carvalho, Horácio Martins de, ed. Sementes: Patrimônio do Povo a Serviço da Humanidade. São Paulo: Expressão Popular, 2003.

Chaves, Christine. "Mystique: MST Rituals and Dilemmas." Revista de Antropologia (USP) 65, no. 3 (2022): e197973.

Chatterji, Angana P., Thomas Blom Hansen, and Christophe Jaffrelot, eds. Majoritarian State: How Hindu Nationalism Is Changing India. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Daher, Aurélie. Hezbollah: Mobilization and Power. London: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Daher, Joseph. Hezbollah: The Political Economy of Lebanon's Party of God. London: Pluto Press, 2016.

De Dreu, Carsten K. W., et al. "The Neuropeptide Basis of Human Cooperation." Cited in Schroder, Fight Like an Animal podcast.

Deeb, Lara. An Enchanted Modern: Gender and Public Piety in Shi'i Lebanon. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.

De Haan, Foppe. "On Capitalism and Class Rule: Moving Beyond the 'PMC Debate.'" Cosmonaut Magazine, 9 February 2024. https://cosmonautmag.com/2024/02/on-capitalism-and-class-rule-moving-beyond-the-pmc-debate/.

Dirik, Dilar. The Kurdish Women's Movement: History, Theory, Practice. London: Pluto Press, 2022.

Donzelot, Jacques. The Policing of Families. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon, 1979 [1977].

Ealham, Chris. Anarchism and the City: Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Barcelona, 1898–1937. Oakland: AK Press, 2010.

Endnotes Collective. Endnotes 4: Unity in Separation. 2015.

Federici, Silvia. Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. Brooklyn: Autonomedia, 2004.

Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Commissariat of Enlightenment: Soviet Organization of Education and the Arts under Lunacharsky, October 1917–1921. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Francione, Gary L. Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.

Francione, Gary L. Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. Exempla Press, 2015.

Graeber, David, and David Wengrow. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2021.

Gruber, Helmut. Red Vienna: Experiment in Working-Class Culture, 1919–1934. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Hahn, Erica R., Megan Gillogly, and Bailey E. Bradford. "Children Are Unsuspecting Meat Eaters: An Opportunity to Address Climate Change." Journal of Environmental Psychology 78 (2021): 101705.

Hansen, Thomas Blom. The Saffron Wave: Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Hollis-Brusky, Amanda. Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009.

Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. Father Time: A Natural History of Men and Babies. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2024.

Hudson, Michael. ...and Forgive Them Their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year. Dresden: ISLET-Verlag, 2018.

Du Mez, Kristin Kobes. Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. New York: Liveright, 2020.

Ingersoll, Julie. Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Issa, Daniela. "Praxis of Empowerment: Mística and Mobilization in Brazil's Landless Rural Workers' Movement." Latin American Perspectives 34, no. 2 (2007): 124–138.

Isenberg, Nancy. White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America. New York: Viking, 2016.

Jackman, Mary R. The Velvet Glove: Paternalism and Conflict in Gender, Class, and Race Relations. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.

Jaffrelot, Christophe. India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.

Jones, Robert P. The End of White Christian America. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2016.

Jones-Rogers, Stephanie E. They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019.

King, Wilma. Stolen Childhood: Slave Youth in Nineteenth-Century America. 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011.

Knapp, Michael, Anja Flach, and Ercan Ayboga. Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan. Translated by Janet Biehl. London: Pluto Press, 2016.

Kocamaner, Hikmet. "Religio-Governmental Infrastructures: The Diyanet and the AKP." In Esra Özyürek, Gaye Özpinar, and Emrah Altındış, eds., Authoritarianism and Resistance in Turkey: Conversations on Democratic and Social Challenges. Cham: Springer, 2019.

Knight, Chris. Blood Relations: Menstruation and the Origins of Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991.

Knight, Chris. "Wrong About (Almost) Everything." FocaalBlog, 22 December 2021.

Kruse, Kevin M. One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. New York: Basic Books, 2015.

Lidtke, Vernon L. The Alternative Culture: Socialist Labor in Imperial Germany. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Mally, Lynn. Culture of the Future: The Proletkult Movement in Revolutionary Russia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.

Marx, Karl. Early Writings. Translated by Rodney Livingstone and Gregor Benton. London: Penguin, 1975.

Max-Neef, Manfred, Antonio Elizalde, and Martín Hopenhayn. Human Scale Development: Conception, Application, and Further Reflections. New York: Apex Press, 1991.

McAlevey, Jane. No Shortcuts: Organizing for Power in the New Gilded Age. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.

McAlevey, Jane. A Collective Bargain: Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy. New York: Ecco, 2020.

McGuire, Luke, Sally B. Palmer, and Nadira S. Faber. "The Development of Speciesism: Age-Related Differences in the Moral View of Animals." Social Psychological and Personality Science 14, no. 2 (2023).

Michels, Robert. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. With an introduction by Seymour Martin Lipset. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1999 [1911/1915].

Moreton, Bethany. To Serve God and Wal-Mart: The Making of Christian Free Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.

Neel, Phil A. Hinterland: America's New Landscape of Class and Conflict. London: Reaktion Books, 2018.

Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994.

Norton, Augustus Richard. Hezbollah: A Short History. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014.

Paruzel-Czachura, Mariola, Maximilian Maier, Renata Warmuz, Matti Wilks, and Lucius Caviola. "Children Value Animals More Than Adults Do: A Conceptual Replication and Extension." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (2025).

Piazza, Jared, Victoria Simpson, and Luke McGuire. "Why Children Moralise Harm to Animals but Not Meat." Trends in Cognitive Sciences 27, no. 10 (2023).

Plummer, Dawn. "Leadership Development and Formação in Brazil's Landless Workers Movement (MST)." MA thesis, City University of New York, 2008.

Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard A. Cloward. Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Vintage, 1979.

Quataert, Jean H. Reluctant Feminists in German Social Democracy, 1885-1917. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.

Rollins, Judith. Between Women: Domestics and Their Employers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1985.

Rosenberg, Marshall B. Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. 3rd ed. Encinitas, CA: PuddleDog Press, 2015.

Sapolsky, Robert M. Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. New York: Penguin Press, 2017.

Sapolsky, Robert M., and Lisa J. Share. "A Pacific Culture among Wild Baboons: Its Emergence and Transmission." PLoS Biology 2, no. 4 (2004): e106.

Sarkar, Tanika, and Urvashi Butalia, eds. Women and the Hindu Right: A Collection of Essays. New Delhi: Kali for Women, 1995.

Schmidinger, Thomas. Rojava: Revolution, War and the Future of Syria's Kurds. London: Pluto Press, 2018.

Schmidinger, Thomas. The Battle for the Mountain of the Kurds: Self-Determination and Ethnic Cleansing in the Afrin Region of Rojava. Oakland: PM Press, 2019.

Schorske, Carl E. German Social Democracy, 1905-1917: The Development of the Great Schism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955.

Schroder, Arnold. Fight Like an Animal podcast. Episodes cited: "What Elephants Can Teach Us About Civil War" (episode 13, 2020) and episodes on the neuropeptide basis of cooperation.

Scott, James C. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.

Scott, James C. Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017.

Shannon, Graeme, et al. "Effects of Social Disruption in Elephants Persist Decades After Culling." Frontiers in Zoology 10 (2013): 62.

Smith, John. Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century: Globalization, Super-Exploitation, and Capitalism's Final Crisis. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2016.

Stédile, João Pedro, and Bernardo Mançano Fernandes. Brava Gente: A Trajetória do MST e a Luta pela Terra no Brasil. São Paulo: Fundação Perseu Abramo, 1999.

Sternhell, Zeev. The Founding Myths of Israel: Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish State. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Stewart, Katherine. The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism. New York: Bloomsbury, 2020.

Sutton, Matthew Avery. American Apocalypse: A History of Modern Evangelicalism. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014.

Tarlau, Rebecca. Occupying Schools, Occupying Land: How the Landless Workers Movement Transformed Brazilian Education. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Tricontinental Institute for Social Research. The Political Organisation of Brazil's Landless Workers' Movement (MST). Dossier 75. April 2024.

Tuğal, Cihan. Passive Revolution: Absorbing the Islamic Challenge to Capitalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009.

Tuğal, Cihan. The Fall of the Turkish Model: How the Arab Uprisings Brought Down Islamic Liberalism. London: Verso, 2016.

Vanaik, Achin. The Furies of Indian Communalism: Religion, Modernity, and Secularization. London: Verso, 1997.

Vergara-Camus, Leandro. Land and Freedom: The MST, the Zapatistas and Peasant Alternatives to Neoliberalism. London: Zed Books, 2014.

Verhey, Jeffrey. The Spirit of 1914: Militarism, Myth, and Mobilization in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

White, Jenny B. Islamist Mobilization in Turkey: A Study in Vernacular Politics. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2002.

Wilks, Matti, Lucius Caviola, Guy Kahane, and Paul Bloom. "Children Prioritize Humans Over Animals Less Than Adults Do." Psychological Science 32, no. 1 (2021): 27–38.

Whitehead, Andrew L., and Samuel L. Perry. Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.

Yilmaz, Ihsan, and Galib Bashirov [Albayrak]. Erdoganist Islamism, the Diyanet, and the Construction of a Civilizational Identity. Palgrave Macmillan, 2024.