What do you think?
Rate this book
Minority Rule: Adventures in the Culture War
We live under minority rule. But who is the ruling minority?
Most of us are getting screwed over. Our world is defined by inequality, insecurity, lack of community and information overload. As the world burns, mega-corporations are reporting record profits. How are they getting away with it?
'Minority rule' is the term Ash Sarkar uses to describe the irrational fear that minorities are trying to overturn and oppress majority populations. In her eye-opening debut, she reveals how minority elites rule majorities by creating the culture wars that have taken over our politics, stoking fear and panic in our media landscape. Because despite what they'll have you believe, anti-racist campaigners aren't actually silencing the 'forgotten' working class, immigrants aren't eating your pets, trans-activists aren't corrupting your children, and cancel culture isn't crushing free speech.
In Minority Rule, Sarkar exposes how a strategic misdirection of blame over who is really screwing everything up is keeping the majority divided, while the real ruling minority of hedge fund managers, press barons, landlords and corporations remain on top. And it's facilitating one of the biggest power grabs in history. Most crucially, she shows us how what we really have in common is being concealed by a deafening culture of distraction – and that the first step towards a better future is understanding what is happening now, and how we got here.
Most of us are getting screwed over. Our world is defined by inequality, insecurity, lack of community and information overload. As the world burns, mega-corporations are reporting record profits. How are they getting away with it?
'Minority rule' is the term Ash Sarkar uses to describe the irrational fear that minorities are trying to overturn and oppress majority populations. In her eye-opening debut, she reveals how minority elites rule majorities by creating the culture wars that have taken over our politics, stoking fear and panic in our media landscape. Because despite what they'll have you believe, anti-racist campaigners aren't actually silencing the 'forgotten' working class, immigrants aren't eating your pets, trans-activists aren't corrupting your children, and cancel culture isn't crushing free speech.
In Minority Rule, Sarkar exposes how a strategic misdirection of blame over who is really screwing everything up is keeping the majority divided, while the real ruling minority of hedge fund managers, press barons, landlords and corporations remain on top. And it's facilitating one of the biggest power grabs in history. Most crucially, she shows us how what we really have in common is being concealed by a deafening culture of distraction – and that the first step towards a better future is understanding what is happening now, and how we got here.
319 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 27, 2025
247 people are currently reading
2,020 people want to read
About the author
Ash Sarkar
2books39followersAshna Sarkar (b. 1992) is an English journalist and libertarian communist political activist. She is a senior editor at Novara Media and teaches at the Sandberg Institute in Amsterdam. Sarkar is a contributor to The Guardian and The Independent.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews
March 9, 2025
Journalist and political commentator Ash Sarkar’s one of the most widely-known figures on the British left. Her incredibly accessible, often very witty, book takes as its focus the Culture War. Sarkar reflects both on where the left’s gone astray and how the right has increasingly shaped and reshaped the political conversation. Sarkar’s provocative starting point is essentially a dissection of what the right’s framed as ‘identity politics’ the emphasis on “lived experience” that’s become so dominant in liberal to left circles – so much so that more attention’s likely to be given, for example, to debating whether or not someone like Anne Frank had ‘white privilege’ than on how to address poverty and profound levels of social inequality. At the same time, we’re witnessing the rise of an increasingly feudalistic form of capitalism, in which wealthy individuals and corporations hold much, if not most, of the wealth and much of the power: from Google to Elon Musk, Trump and Jeff Bezos.
Sarkar goes on to examine the ways in which "the reactionary right has harnessed culture wars to promote the idea that those who traditionally occupied a dominant position in society are in danger of being subjugated by those on the margins". Such that politicians like Trump have been able to position themselves as the champions of a beleaguered – predominantly white, hetero and male - social group desperately fending off the incessant demands of the so-called ‘woke’. A stance that’s become something of a smokescreen to distract from what’s really going on in the world. Meanwhile, according to Sarkar – and I find it hard to entirely disagree – the left has become so invested in cultural issues they’re unable to adequately address economic and class-related questions; and that’s led to a severing of connections from traditional forms of collective organisation and resistance, as well as an inability to engage with the broader political landscape.
Sarkar argues this is partly because this emphasis on the personal and the subjective is all-too-often entwined with contemporary capitalism, neoliberalism and the commodification of the self – lean-in feminism is a prime example. So that significant numbers of the liberal left are more caught up in carving out personal space for themselves within contemporary capitalism than in challenging the inequities of the system itself. Moreover, this retreat into specific identity/single-issue silos disrupts possibilities for building broader political movements and coalitions. She contrasts this with past historical movements like Fred Hampton’s Rainbow Coalition which united a cross-section of the downtrodden and disenfranchised from poor, white Appalachians to the Puerto Rican Young Lords to Black Panthers; and the Combahee River Collective’s rooting of their analysis of racism, misogyny and homophobia in a wider, deeply anti-capitalist critique. In turn, while much of the left’s been more or less navel-gazing, the right has weaponised the left’s approach and turned it back against them – for instance challenges to racism have become reconfigured as an attack on the culture and identity of an “oppressed, white working-class”.
Sarkar examines how this might have happened, and why. Whose political interests does it serve? She does so by drawing on a series of case studies and concrete examples: how support for trans communities – a miniscule proportion of the British and/or American population - was reconfigured as near-existential threat, becoming a potent wedge issue that’s massively benefited the right/radical right; how Britain’s ethnically-diverse working-class, once derided by right-wing politicians and pundits as “chavs” were repositioned, viewed through a divisive, racial lens, and transformed into political fodder as prime examples of solely white victimhood. She moves onto explaining the basis of what’s known as ‘rentier capitalism’ what it is, how it works, and how it disadvantages the overwhelming majority.
Throughout she stresses the crucial role media plays in promoting Culture War perspectives, from Britain’s political journalists aka The Lobby to legacy and digital media/platforms. She decries the prioritisation of micro-events like British news stories suggesting “breast-feeding women” were being erased by the NHS in favour of “chest-feeders” – this turned out to be an interesting misreading of guidance issued in Sussex on how to sensitively address its trans service users. She highlights the focus on creating emotional, often fear, responses. It’s an environment in which the sensationalist and the superficial supersede “substantive political engagement.” All of which diverts our attention from facts: like the UK over the course of about sixty years moving from one of the most equal of the richer countries to having the second-highest rate of inequality in the G7, the US is the frontrunner. Or that most of us are now, just barely, renting space on what’s effectively become Planet Landlord. Sarkar’s interventionist perspective’s getting flak from right and left. The right assumes, wrongly, that she advocates abandoning opposition to racism, queerphobia, misogyny; the left frets that her viewpoint may be “corrosive for solidarity.” A furore that underlines just how topical and timely this is.
Sarkar goes on to examine the ways in which "the reactionary right has harnessed culture wars to promote the idea that those who traditionally occupied a dominant position in society are in danger of being subjugated by those on the margins". Such that politicians like Trump have been able to position themselves as the champions of a beleaguered – predominantly white, hetero and male - social group desperately fending off the incessant demands of the so-called ‘woke’. A stance that’s become something of a smokescreen to distract from what’s really going on in the world. Meanwhile, according to Sarkar – and I find it hard to entirely disagree – the left has become so invested in cultural issues they’re unable to adequately address economic and class-related questions; and that’s led to a severing of connections from traditional forms of collective organisation and resistance, as well as an inability to engage with the broader political landscape.
Sarkar argues this is partly because this emphasis on the personal and the subjective is all-too-often entwined with contemporary capitalism, neoliberalism and the commodification of the self – lean-in feminism is a prime example. So that significant numbers of the liberal left are more caught up in carving out personal space for themselves within contemporary capitalism than in challenging the inequities of the system itself. Moreover, this retreat into specific identity/single-issue silos disrupts possibilities for building broader political movements and coalitions. She contrasts this with past historical movements like Fred Hampton’s Rainbow Coalition which united a cross-section of the downtrodden and disenfranchised from poor, white Appalachians to the Puerto Rican Young Lords to Black Panthers; and the Combahee River Collective’s rooting of their analysis of racism, misogyny and homophobia in a wider, deeply anti-capitalist critique. In turn, while much of the left’s been more or less navel-gazing, the right has weaponised the left’s approach and turned it back against them – for instance challenges to racism have become reconfigured as an attack on the culture and identity of an “oppressed, white working-class”.
Sarkar examines how this might have happened, and why. Whose political interests does it serve? She does so by drawing on a series of case studies and concrete examples: how support for trans communities – a miniscule proportion of the British and/or American population - was reconfigured as near-existential threat, becoming a potent wedge issue that’s massively benefited the right/radical right; how Britain’s ethnically-diverse working-class, once derided by right-wing politicians and pundits as “chavs” were repositioned, viewed through a divisive, racial lens, and transformed into political fodder as prime examples of solely white victimhood. She moves onto explaining the basis of what’s known as ‘rentier capitalism’ what it is, how it works, and how it disadvantages the overwhelming majority.
Throughout she stresses the crucial role media plays in promoting Culture War perspectives, from Britain’s political journalists aka The Lobby to legacy and digital media/platforms. She decries the prioritisation of micro-events like British news stories suggesting “breast-feeding women” were being erased by the NHS in favour of “chest-feeders” – this turned out to be an interesting misreading of guidance issued in Sussex on how to sensitively address its trans service users. She highlights the focus on creating emotional, often fear, responses. It’s an environment in which the sensationalist and the superficial supersede “substantive political engagement.” All of which diverts our attention from facts: like the UK over the course of about sixty years moving from one of the most equal of the richer countries to having the second-highest rate of inequality in the G7, the US is the frontrunner. Or that most of us are now, just barely, renting space on what’s effectively become Planet Landlord. Sarkar’s interventionist perspective’s getting flak from right and left. The right assumes, wrongly, that she advocates abandoning opposition to racism, queerphobia, misogyny; the left frets that her viewpoint may be “corrosive for solidarity.” A furore that underlines just how topical and timely this is.
March 13, 2025
Man like Ash Sarkar
January 2, 2025
Minority Rule is a much-needed reality check for the left - it examines how the right have weaponised identity politics against progressives in order to distract and divide us. It brings class consciousness back to the fore, and it doesn't pull its punches in examining how we got here. I loved Ash Sarkar anyway, but now I have a new respect for her ability to draw a clear line from the historical context through the current moment, and forward to what we need to do to reframe the conversation in all our interests. This book comes out in February, and it couldn't be more timely at a moment when it feels like the right is on the rise everywhere and the left has little cohesive response.
Read this if corporations celebrating pride gives you the ick, but not in a bigoted way.
Read this if corporations celebrating pride gives you the ick, but not in a bigoted way.
April 9, 2025
*3.5 Mostly v well communicated and covers a lot of ground. More importantly it ties a lot of different issues and talking points of Austerity Britain together in a comprehensible narrative which is v important IMO. There are a few framings which I feel are problematic/contradictory but I don’t think they present any fundamental flaws of the argument. Mostly it conveys some pretty complex narratives in a way which is accessible and jargon-free. Excited for her next book
March 30, 2025
Well written and persuasive, but I was disappointed by the lack of conclusion. The marketing campaign for the book had focused on Ash’s criticism of identity politics. From my reading, this didn’t actually seem that controversial… but maybe that’s because I’m not on Twitter and so am not steeped in the discourse she’s addressing.
She diagnoses societal problems with a Marxist analysis of class-relations (with identity politics presented as a distraction from class solidarity) and there is value in articulating this in an engaging, accessible and relevant way. But the lack of conclusion on next steps is frustrating. So identity politics hasn’t addressed the root causes of inequality, and made things worse by becoming a tool of the right - sure, so what are you suggesting instead? Class solidarity and loose references to organising feel a little half hearted (if important) given the analytical rigour applied throughout the rest of the book. If you’re coming out swinging about the inefficacy of left wing organising in the last decade, I feel like you should at least cautiously posit some ideas on how to do this differently. The chapter on identity politics felt like an opportunity to re-litigate twitter beef, which is a little boring and less relevant than the great analysis in the following chapters.
I found the bits on journalism, the media and creation of ‘white working class’ particularly great.
She diagnoses societal problems with a Marxist analysis of class-relations (with identity politics presented as a distraction from class solidarity) and there is value in articulating this in an engaging, accessible and relevant way. But the lack of conclusion on next steps is frustrating. So identity politics hasn’t addressed the root causes of inequality, and made things worse by becoming a tool of the right - sure, so what are you suggesting instead? Class solidarity and loose references to organising feel a little half hearted (if important) given the analytical rigour applied throughout the rest of the book. If you’re coming out swinging about the inefficacy of left wing organising in the last decade, I feel like you should at least cautiously posit some ideas on how to do this differently. The chapter on identity politics felt like an opportunity to re-litigate twitter beef, which is a little boring and less relevant than the great analysis in the following chapters.
I found the bits on journalism, the media and creation of ‘white working class’ particularly great.
March 10, 2025
at it’s best when an introspective on the left, Sarkar is evidently incredibly intelligent & knowledgeable on all the issues at hand. unfortunately I don’t feel this book gave me too much by way of new/original perspectives, but it definitely emboldened some beliefs I already had.
March 26, 2025
I was very much convinced by Sarkar’s analysis of contemporary media culture’s splintering of class consciousness, and the vested interests of capital in this splintering. I enjoyed how she formulated the notion of the pundit politician, her articulation of the racial politics of the “white working class”, and how she embedded her thinking in the framework provided by Christophers’ rentier capitalism. At the same time, I thought her foregrounding of neoliberal identity politics as a disruption to coalition building and solidarity was unnuanced. I’m sympathetic to her argument that lived experience should not be the left’s primary mode of political analysis, and that identity can reify/ontologise differences produced by capital, but I thought her arguments here were, at best, strawmen drawn from the more lurid instances of identitarian Twitter beef - and poorly captured how this politics actually plays out in day to day life and organising. Ultimately I think Sarkar’s argument (in this chapter, at least) is hostage to the more reactionary characterisations of identity politics in contemporary media, and this obscured the significant potential here for useful commentary. I don’t understand why the chapter on identity politics was foregrounded both in the book’s structure and in its publicity campaign, especially as the remainder of the book so articulately outlines how ownership classes have attempted to destroy class consciousness - in that light, the charge feels a heavy one to lay at the door of a handful of liberal-left Twitter commentators talking about white privilege.
There is much to like here, and I think Sarkar is great. Her prose is conversational, argumentative, lively and engaging. I found the latter three quarters of the book illuminating and thought-provoking. But for me, this was a missed opportunity.
There is much to like here, and I think Sarkar is great. Her prose is conversational, argumentative, lively and engaging. I found the latter three quarters of the book illuminating and thought-provoking. But for me, this was a missed opportunity.
May 8, 2025
Readable, engaging and interesting, but beyond the first chapter, Ash doesn’t seem to advance the argument that the Left has both bloated and diluted identity politics to disastrous ends. The chapters on class consciousness and rentierism were the most interesting, but I felt that the overall argument was a bit confused - a tug-of-war between the idea of the Left being obsessed with idpol and of the Right actually driving it. There was less discussion of the Left’s role in this phenomenon, which would have been more interesting as this hasn’t really been considered by the Left in a serious way as yet.
March 4, 2025
A great class-centric examination of the fearmongering and division tactics the elites have employed to misdirect the blame of growing inequality away from themselves and onto the marginalised and vulnerable. This definitely exceeded my expectations and I'm surprised by just how much I enjoyed it, aside from the football quips.
January 19, 2025
Minority Rule dives into how minority elites twist cultural and political stories to keep their grip on power. Sarkar argues that these culture wars are used to stir up fear and division, distracting us from real issues like inequality and corporate control. With sharp analysis and bold commentary, she exposes the tactics used by these elites and challenges the media's common narratives. I have really enjoyed reading Sarkar's thought-provoking insights and timely investigation into power and culture. If you’re keen to understand the deeper forces shaping our society, this really is a must read!
March 29, 2025
I went into this expecting it to be more controversial — the publicity campaign focused on the notion of identity politics as an unhelpful turn in leftist thinking, to blame for the splintering of former left-wing voter blocks into Tory / Reform / apathy. Before any of us had read the book, this idea prompted some healthy debate and I was excited to get stuck into Ash’s argument. But actually I felt like the meat of this book wasn’t really about identity politics at all (or at least, it felt like a flimsy framework for what she was really talking about).
Most of the book is a (very coherent and persuasive) analysis of how the ruling class of rentier capitalism pit the masses against one another. Aside from a few especially contrary examples in the first chapter, it wasn’t really about the left pushing white working class voters away with their yapping about identity politics, but about the right pulling them in, capitalising on the frustration and disempowerment caused by years of managed decline (thank you Ferg for this helpful push/pull analogy). To which I say: I agree with her analysis wholeheartedly! Almost disappointingly, not controversial at all.
Some other random observations:
- I thought her articulation of the media’s shift from writing about ‘chavs’ to the ‘white working class’ was brilliant.
- I was less convinced by her suggestion that the 2011 riots were an example of multiracial working class solidarity — felt like quite an optimistic reading
Most of the book is a (very coherent and persuasive) analysis of how the ruling class of rentier capitalism pit the masses against one another. Aside from a few especially contrary examples in the first chapter, it wasn’t really about the left pushing white working class voters away with their yapping about identity politics, but about the right pulling them in, capitalising on the frustration and disempowerment caused by years of managed decline (thank you Ferg for this helpful push/pull analogy). To which I say: I agree with her analysis wholeheartedly! Almost disappointingly, not controversial at all.
Some other random observations:
- I thought her articulation of the media’s shift from writing about ‘chavs’ to the ‘white working class’ was brilliant.
- I was less convinced by her suggestion that the 2011 riots were an example of multiracial working class solidarity — felt like quite an optimistic reading
March 8, 2025
Wowow this book is fantastic. Incredibly clearly argued description of how the leftist movement needs to embrace working together to overcome material inequality, and of how right-wing movements have made use of “identity politics” for their own political gain.
BTW critics that say she’s selling out the left or jumping on the bandwagon of leftist-thinkers-turned-right now that the Zeitgeist is shifting - you clearly have not read the book. You should because you’d probably love it.
My only substantial criticism is I wanted more! Especially in the last chapter - it’s maybe 20 pages about extractivism when it could be an entire book of its own. Anyways this and Doppelganger are now spooning at spot 1 of my favorite nonfiction reads of recent times. That is all thank you.
BTW critics that say she’s selling out the left or jumping on the bandwagon of leftist-thinkers-turned-right now that the Zeitgeist is shifting - you clearly have not read the book. You should because you’d probably love it.
My only substantial criticism is I wanted more! Especially in the last chapter - it’s maybe 20 pages about extractivism when it could be an entire book of its own. Anyways this and Doppelganger are now spooning at spot 1 of my favorite nonfiction reads of recent times. That is all thank you.
April 20, 2025
4.5 Stars - just solid opinions reinforcing lots of points I agree with. Well written and very readable for non fiction.
May 1, 2025
I think Novara is guilty of a lot of the things she criticises in this book re identity politics but thought it was a brilliant critique both of the left and liberalism.
March 21, 2025
Time for the left to bring back the politics of class and place it front and centre
March 17, 2025
Ash Sarkar is by far the best of the lot, but my opinion of the Novara crowd has become increasingly (and regrettably) jaundiced - so I was really pleased to enjoy this book more than I expected to.
I appreciated that Sarkar embraced the best bits of books I quite enjoyed but which ultimately just fell short. Like Nesrine Malik’s ‘We Need New Stories’, Sarkar does a great job of studying who confected media storms serve and how they’re instrumentalised in favour of existing power structures - but, whilst engaging to read, that’s not particularly incisive (even James O’Brien has managed to do similar…). Sarkar’s real contribution is strapping this to an overarching analysis which is coherent and compelling (but which remains elegant in its simplicity): the many are united in being the victims of a wealth grab by the few, and therefore have far more in common than that which divides them. In identifying that this thread runs through so many of the ‘culture war’ issues that seemingly divide us (on race, gender, class and more besides), and offering her frame of analysis as a way out, the text creates the space to make novel points; in particular, I found the concept of ‘MP-as-pundit’ to be a really useful means of making sense of the coterie of Reform MPs whose entire model relies on not ever actually having to govern. Whilst Sarkar’s theory at times flirted with being a bit too totalising, the book ultimately always managed to tread the right side of the line - and this therefore felt like exuberance rather than flimsiness. This sets it apart from something like Grace Blakeley’s ‘Vulture Capitalism’ (which slightly crumbles under the weight of its own ambitions), and allows it to offer an Owen Jones-level of rallying cry founded on much more substance than I’d expect from him. That’s in part because she uses the concept of rentier capitalism outlined by the likes of Brett Christophers to anchor her analysis and show how it all ties together. In the end, I thought she did it well.
Added to that - the book is snappily written, and an all-round great read stylistically. Sarkar does a superb job of translating Marxist concepts for everyday audiences, and applying them in ways that feel natural and uncontrived (which surely makes her something of a chimera in Marxist circles). Throughout, ‘Minority Rule’ is consistent in its commitment to class analysis and historical materialism - in circumstances where Sarkar rarely uses the term ‘materialism’ other than to define it (she’s more overt in her references to class, but this is a much more intuitive concept for British audiences). This births some thought provoking discussions. Why do we have a Westminster monoparty? It’s not just because they’re all drawn from the same backgrounds and funded by the same interests - it’s also down to material conditions (and, in particular, the fact that the political space has been narrowed by a media that genuinely is monocultural). Added to that: Sarkar does a superb job of linking her writing to her own personal circumstances where relevant, whilst strictly applying relevance criteria so that this never feels gratuitous, frivolous or self-absorbed. She’s also genuinely reflective regarding her own politics, and willing to consider all sorts of opinions; I found myself really enjoying the surprise interviews with Piers Morgan and Dominic Cummings. To top it off, the book is well-researched and rigorous. The discussion of Gillick competence in relation to transgender healthcare in particular was nuanced and informed, and the only error I spotted was a throwaway comment to Vladimir Lenin having coined the book title ‘What is to be Done?’ (which would have come as a surprise to Nikolai Chernyshevsky - though this is an incredibly minor point).
‘Minority Rule’ has drawn criticism based on the way in which the chapter on identity politics sees Sarkar highlight some really daft (and ultimately unrepresentative) examples as evidence of progressive excess. It’s true that there’s a bit of that - which is a shame. Sarkar argues against the “current political climate”, but in so doing takes the most extreme and noisy examples as its bearers (and it’s notable that a lot of the sillier examples are drawn from America). To some extent, it therefore feels that she’s arguing with a Left that doesn’t exist - and it’s a shame that we don’t hear more about her own experiences during the Corbyn years, which was the only genuine party political project that she has been a part of (the failure of which had very little to do with this type of thing). That being said, anyone who has been at all involved with the Left will understand the point she’s making - and the fact that Sarkar (like any of us) can’t do anything more than throw out evidence that is by its nature anecdotal doesn’t dismiss her point. Ultimately, I think Sarkar is right to conclude that we should do more to think about our oppressions as interconnected and structural - even if just as a practical means of transforming society. I also think that this is quite a specific point made in just one chapter of a much wider book, and that it doesn’t warrant being treated as the text’s core idea (though part of the problem is Sarkar’s fault in that she’s chosen to focus on this in interviews relating to the book - even with publications whose editorial line means that they will not treat the subject in a nuanced manner).
A good read, and I’d recommend it.
I appreciated that Sarkar embraced the best bits of books I quite enjoyed but which ultimately just fell short. Like Nesrine Malik’s ‘We Need New Stories’, Sarkar does a great job of studying who confected media storms serve and how they’re instrumentalised in favour of existing power structures - but, whilst engaging to read, that’s not particularly incisive (even James O’Brien has managed to do similar…). Sarkar’s real contribution is strapping this to an overarching analysis which is coherent and compelling (but which remains elegant in its simplicity): the many are united in being the victims of a wealth grab by the few, and therefore have far more in common than that which divides them. In identifying that this thread runs through so many of the ‘culture war’ issues that seemingly divide us (on race, gender, class and more besides), and offering her frame of analysis as a way out, the text creates the space to make novel points; in particular, I found the concept of ‘MP-as-pundit’ to be a really useful means of making sense of the coterie of Reform MPs whose entire model relies on not ever actually having to govern. Whilst Sarkar’s theory at times flirted with being a bit too totalising, the book ultimately always managed to tread the right side of the line - and this therefore felt like exuberance rather than flimsiness. This sets it apart from something like Grace Blakeley’s ‘Vulture Capitalism’ (which slightly crumbles under the weight of its own ambitions), and allows it to offer an Owen Jones-level of rallying cry founded on much more substance than I’d expect from him. That’s in part because she uses the concept of rentier capitalism outlined by the likes of Brett Christophers to anchor her analysis and show how it all ties together. In the end, I thought she did it well.
Added to that - the book is snappily written, and an all-round great read stylistically. Sarkar does a superb job of translating Marxist concepts for everyday audiences, and applying them in ways that feel natural and uncontrived (which surely makes her something of a chimera in Marxist circles). Throughout, ‘Minority Rule’ is consistent in its commitment to class analysis and historical materialism - in circumstances where Sarkar rarely uses the term ‘materialism’ other than to define it (she’s more overt in her references to class, but this is a much more intuitive concept for British audiences). This births some thought provoking discussions. Why do we have a Westminster monoparty? It’s not just because they’re all drawn from the same backgrounds and funded by the same interests - it’s also down to material conditions (and, in particular, the fact that the political space has been narrowed by a media that genuinely is monocultural). Added to that: Sarkar does a superb job of linking her writing to her own personal circumstances where relevant, whilst strictly applying relevance criteria so that this never feels gratuitous, frivolous or self-absorbed. She’s also genuinely reflective regarding her own politics, and willing to consider all sorts of opinions; I found myself really enjoying the surprise interviews with Piers Morgan and Dominic Cummings. To top it off, the book is well-researched and rigorous. The discussion of Gillick competence in relation to transgender healthcare in particular was nuanced and informed, and the only error I spotted was a throwaway comment to Vladimir Lenin having coined the book title ‘What is to be Done?’ (which would have come as a surprise to Nikolai Chernyshevsky - though this is an incredibly minor point).
‘Minority Rule’ has drawn criticism based on the way in which the chapter on identity politics sees Sarkar highlight some really daft (and ultimately unrepresentative) examples as evidence of progressive excess. It’s true that there’s a bit of that - which is a shame. Sarkar argues against the “current political climate”, but in so doing takes the most extreme and noisy examples as its bearers (and it’s notable that a lot of the sillier examples are drawn from America). To some extent, it therefore feels that she’s arguing with a Left that doesn’t exist - and it’s a shame that we don’t hear more about her own experiences during the Corbyn years, which was the only genuine party political project that she has been a part of (the failure of which had very little to do with this type of thing). That being said, anyone who has been at all involved with the Left will understand the point she’s making - and the fact that Sarkar (like any of us) can’t do anything more than throw out evidence that is by its nature anecdotal doesn’t dismiss her point. Ultimately, I think Sarkar is right to conclude that we should do more to think about our oppressions as interconnected and structural - even if just as a practical means of transforming society. I also think that this is quite a specific point made in just one chapter of a much wider book, and that it doesn’t warrant being treated as the text’s core idea (though part of the problem is Sarkar’s fault in that she’s chosen to focus on this in interviews relating to the book - even with publications whose editorial line means that they will not treat the subject in a nuanced manner).
A good read, and I’d recommend it.
March 29, 2025
1) The first half of this book is a lot stronger (imo). The first two chapters in particular I thought were poignant, well written, and compelling in their arguments. The final chapter about landlordism and rentier capitalism is similarly strong. The middle of the book was not bad but felt a step down.
2) The central thesis, that the wealthy and the powerful have very effective and uncompromising class solidarity, and very tried-and-tested methods of preventing that in the rest of us, is true, evidenced with timely stories. It is depressing but anything is possible with numbers. The idea that the left needs to be less into its purity tests and a broader church overall is hard to disagree with. The right is winning everywhere and we are all poorer for it.
2) The central thesis, that the wealthy and the powerful have very effective and uncompromising class solidarity, and very tried-and-tested methods of preventing that in the rest of us, is true, evidenced with timely stories. It is depressing but anything is possible with numbers. The idea that the left needs to be less into its purity tests and a broader church overall is hard to disagree with. The right is winning everywhere and we are all poorer for it.
April 2, 2025
With Minority Rule, Ash Sarkar’s formulated a pertinent diagnosis of contemporary political strife, drawing from her personal experiences to meaningful effect. While some have taken issue with Sarkar’s disillusionment with (modern) identity politics, it’s a worthwhile feat to develop one’s views while maintaining the same core principles.
With that said there’s not much here, from analysis to interview discussion, that you can’t get from Sarkar’s other platforms. Listening to the audiobook, it felt - in the best and worst way - like listening to a succession of YouTube essays, best saved for background listening when doing housework.
Regardless, Sarkar’s postulations are timely and self-critical, especially when explaining the breakdown of contemporary class consciousness. In this respect, Minority Rule provides an accessible introduction for those interested in Leftist thinking, while rightly positing the need to move beyond discursive realms and back into the material.
With that said there’s not much here, from analysis to interview discussion, that you can’t get from Sarkar’s other platforms. Listening to the audiobook, it felt - in the best and worst way - like listening to a succession of YouTube essays, best saved for background listening when doing housework.
Regardless, Sarkar’s postulations are timely and self-critical, especially when explaining the breakdown of contemporary class consciousness. In this respect, Minority Rule provides an accessible introduction for those interested in Leftist thinking, while rightly positing the need to move beyond discursive realms and back into the material.
April 8, 2025
Brilliantly written, well argued. Not insanely novel? Or as novel as I thought it would be? But part of it's value is in fully explaining, evidencing, and justifying the obvious.
Interesting read of the under-explored 2011 riots/early New Labour cultural shifts.
Really lucky for the left to have an avowedly marxist but also approachable and coherent voice in Ash Sarkar.
Interesting read of the under-explored 2011 riots/early New Labour cultural shifts.
Really lucky for the left to have an avowedly marxist but also approachable and coherent voice in Ash Sarkar.
April 17, 2025
3.5 - The right & the rich out here using culture to distract and divide as per usual 😔 Liked her writing style & found a lot of the book interesting. Was reaffirming but didn’t offer any tangible conclusion apart from the time old “we need class consciousness and solidarity” rather than feeling victimised.
March 18, 2025
Overall, pretty good if a bit underwhelming. The book opens with a really interesting and unique thesis on the state of liberal identity politics but after the opening chapter the book does lose its focus, somewhat. Some chapters get derailed by Sarkar ranting about her particular political bug bears and the through line that weaves the book together can become hard to parse. The content of the book is all interesting - even if a lot of it will feel very familiar to regular viewers of Novara Media - it's just a slight lack of cohesion between the chapters and anecdotes which left this feeling a little lacklustre to me. The book also draws a lot from other books I've read, namely Owen Jones' Chavs and The Establishment and even at the end it references Yanis Varoufakis' Technofeudalism so maybe I'd have been more engaged if I hadn't already read those books. Regardless, it does feel as though Sarkar introduces a new and illuminating analysis of today's political culture in the first chapter but then spends the rest of the book outlining already well-understood political theories without clearly linking them back to her own thesis. I think I would uniquely find this book a bit underwhelming, having regularly listened to Sarkar on Novara Media podcasts for the past 5 or so years, and having already read a lot of the texts the book tries to build upon; perhaps someone a bit less chronically engaged in British left wing politics would get more out of this but I think that's more of a fault of the book than me.
April 2, 2025
Pretty fantastic. Not really a damning account of rightwingers but more scrutinising the failings of the left and how it can be more organised and improved.
Maybe not a call to action, but definitely highlighting the problems in the modern day left-wing movement and does understand nuances of how people turn rightwing.
Maybe not a call to action, but definitely highlighting the problems in the modern day left-wing movement and does understand nuances of how people turn rightwing.
May 4, 2025
mama, we’re going back to historical materialism?
March 5, 2025
Such a witty, accessible and much needed book. Very grateful for Ash Sarkar’s voice and the clarity with which she sees the problems in our society. This helped me make sense of a lot of things. I hope she writes a follow up with some more solutions and practical steps to achieve them as this was the only thing missing for me. (Special One)
March 7, 2025
4.5/5
I loved this!
I loved this!
April 15, 2025
I think Ash is brilliant and she’s a strong voice on the left.
What works
- the chapter about the need for the left to move away from identity politics is great
- Ash keeps things clear and readable sometimes to her detriment.
What didn’t:
- the book doesn’t seem to have ONE coherent arguement. Instead it’s a best of hits of contemporary left wing debates. It covers so much and does write well about them. However, by trying to cover so much from
- landlordism
- trans rights
- privatisation
- cancel culture
- client journalism.
It doesn’t go into these subjects enough. So what it does say is a bit….basic?
Having said that I would recommend this to friends and family as it is very accessible and makes strong cases for its many arguments.
What works
- the chapter about the need for the left to move away from identity politics is great
- Ash keeps things clear and readable sometimes to her detriment.
What didn’t:
- the book doesn’t seem to have ONE coherent arguement. Instead it’s a best of hits of contemporary left wing debates. It covers so much and does write well about them. However, by trying to cover so much from
- landlordism
- trans rights
- privatisation
- cancel culture
- client journalism.
It doesn’t go into these subjects enough. So what it does say is a bit….basic?
Having said that I would recommend this to friends and family as it is very accessible and makes strong cases for its many arguments.
April 22, 2025
A decent book, very UK focused. If one is interested in the divide and rule of the lower classes that are vulnerable to emotional rhetoric in the context of the UK. Then I assume this to be a good book to start with.
May 12, 2025
been following ms sarkar for a while now and got this on audiobook and wow. ash really nails the ways in which the wealthy media machine sets the working class against each other. culture war is a distraction from class war. her way of writing is incredibly astute without being too dense or dry, manages to balance being both enlightening and entertaining. loved it
March 11, 2025
Yes, yes, and yes again
Got better as it went on.
Got better as it went on.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.