As we navigate the complexities of colonial oppression, counter-insurgency, and the increasing complicity of the African comprador class who help uphold the imperialist system, it becomes clear that we need relevant and robust strategies to deal with the psychological onslaught. Astroturfing is the deceptive tactic of disguising orchestrated efforts by hidden sponsors as ‘spontaneous’ and ‘grassroots’ movements, to make them appear to have genuine public support. In other words, it’s the act of manufacturing an idea or image of mass public consensus when there is none; this leads to the co-optation of radical movements, serving to neutralize revolutionary potential as a tactic of counter-insurgency. This strategy by the state aims to crush our fight for liberation through force, manipulation, and division.
To counteract these tactics, we must aspire to support and grow principled organizational unity, cultural autonomy, and political and media independence. These are essential pillars of resistance, and precisely because of their power, the imperialist state demands nothing less than total dominance over them. Through relentless propaganda, shameless opportunism, and the manipulation of the Black misleadership class, they seek to undermine our efforts.
Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Colonialism
This tactic gains its ultimate strength under neoliberal capitalism which, as author Too Black points out in his illuminating book Laundering Black Rage, is simply the domestic expression of neo-colonialism. As the need for further super-exploitation of the colonized masses grows under capitalism, so too does the necessity to quell dissent by expanding the colonized comprador class, known to many as the ‘Black Misleadership Class.’ Neoliberal capitalism operates under the fundamental logic that society and its institutions work best when dictated by the allegedly ‘free market’, leading to austerity and absolving the state of its traditional responsibilities in favor of private solutions to public needs. This logic not only commodifies and financializes every aspect of human life, but also co-opts leadership within oppressed communities to uphold and propagate these capitalist ideals.
In an interview with Dissent Magazine, economics professor Clara E. Mattei discusses the interplay between liberal economics, the liberal state, austerity, and fascism. She explains how under Mussolini’s Italian fascist state, they “use’d austerity to render the Italian public both powerless and dependent on the state.” She continues:
“And who designed those austerity policies for the fascists? High-profile economists, most of them politically liberal. Their architecture of austerity—and this link between liberalism and austerity—remain in play today. Austerity is the core of fascism, even when the austerity is getting administered by a liberal state. I hope the book is an invitation to look beneath some of our comforting political binaries. If we do, we’ll find lots of continuities between liberal technocracy and nationalist authoritarianism.”
Authors Too Black and Rasul A. Mowatt develop a similar analysis even further by applying it to the historical and contemporary conditions of colonized peoples, examining the interplay between neo-liberal capitalism and neo-colonialism. In essence, they assert that neo-colonialism functions as a sort of prerequisite for neo-liberal economic policies abroad, understanding that such policies of state abandonment, deregulation, privatization, slashing of state safety nets and services, and other key components could all only be successfully enacted underneath the leadership of an indigenous comprador, puppet class.
In order to show that this is the case for Africans within the U.S. under internal neo-colonialism as well, they use the example of ‘Black mayors’ and the newly minted ‘Black elite’ in most major cities across the U.S., who largely oversaw this process of neo-liberalization. In chapter 3 they state:
“Domination was designed for the accumulation capital with the Blacker the body as a by-product. Anti-Blackness is the collateral damage. But domination does not mean a lack of participation. As populations in cities grow, with both valued and surplus populations, it is feasible if not wise to incorporate members of those populations into the managerial, elite, and even ruling classes. This launders the Rage caused by domination. To further shepherd cities into a new age, the diversification of classes obscured the monopolization of capital through those same cities. Deindustrialization of the 1970s could occur without further rebellion. Neo-liberalization of the 1980s could happen with minimal riot. Revanchism of the 1990s could occur without protest. Carcerality of the 2000s could occur without acknowledgment. Capitalist reorganization of the 2010s could occur with co-optation, all paving the way for the current stage in the production of urban space of the 2020s with full acceptance and contribution.
In the United States, Black mayors of the 1960s to the 1990s oversaw the proliferation of capital projects, continuing austerity of public services, and the aiding of privatization, while none of this first wave of mayors were never embroiled in major scandal while in office. While Carl B. Stokes of Cleveland in 1967 is acknowledged as the first Black mayor of a major city in the United States and a hundred years earlier, Monroe Baker of St. Martinville (Louisiana) in 1867 was the first Black mayor, the 1990s ushered in an era of Black political participation. The spatial arrangements of the city and the semiotics (meaning-making) of language curtailed and conformed who and what that participation (and representation) would look like. Cities became “Chocolate Cities”, “Black Meccas”, “Motowns”, and “Big Easys”.”
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the process of diversifying the ‘middle class’ and elite forces occurred at the same time as the wave of endless rebellions. That is to say, this process was dialectical. In their ‘laundering’ analogy, the Laundering Black Rage authors describe this appeasement process as part of the ‘bribes’ of the ruling class to quell our rage:
“A general view of this period (and today) was that riots and rebellions were incinerating the cities because the Molotov cocktail throwers felt White society had no place for Black people. In this view, Black Rage was simply a temper tantrum for inclusion into the empire, not a demand for a new society. As Nixon articulated: “What most of the militants are asking is not separation, but to be included in-not as supplicants, but as owners, as entrepreneurs-to have a share of the wealth and a piece of the action”. Nixon’s paternalistic argument was part of the bribe to appear that the State hears the cry, and is deeply invested in achieving Black Power for the good of the whole. However, the bribes were self-interested in stabilizing city markets and controlling the population. As [Robert L. Allen] noted, even if some companies were genuinely interested in resolving the problems of the ghetto, they could not sacrifice their bottom line. Thus, the bribe of Black capitalism was done without restructuring the entire way wealth is built and shared. It also made business sense to invest in a Black capitalist class for further market penetration. The investment in Black business came at a time when multinational corporations such as Pepsi-Cola and Pillsbury Corporation were ratcheting up advertising budgets in Black communities. Having a Black neo-colonial go-between became key to sheepherding the Black consumer base into emerging markets.
The most well-lasting bribes came through education in the form of university access for Black students with complimentary cultural programming, an expansion of government jobs, affirmative action programs that originally set racial quotas for hiring and Black elected officials. Although some positives came from these bribes, they would be the basis for producing what journalist Glenn Ford popularized as “the Black misleadership class” as in the “Black political forces that emerged at the end of the ’60s, eager to join the corporate and duopoly political (mostly Democrat) ranks, and to sell out the interests of the overwhelmingly working-class Black masses in the process”. This is in part the Black elite class of Black mayors that would go on to govern US cities as we described in Chapter 3. First Black mayors like Maynard Jackson of Atlanta would be elected for his solidarity with the masses only to fire over a 1,000 of them as city workers after his election. Similar to the neo-colonies of Africa and the Caribbean, Black representation would be allowed, but power would remain in the possession of the conquerors meaning the consensus form of governing was to be friendly to corporate interests, busting unions, granting tax cuts, leases, land grants, and the selling off of public goods. Black mayors would become the overseers of austerity as White capital threatened to flee from Black cities to the suburbs similar to the flight of capital from the former colonies.”
Culture, Celebrities, & Compradors
Under neoliberal capitalism, like under direct colonialism before it, ‘culture’ itself becomes little more than a commodity; a vehicle for generating profit and propagating the values and ideologies that sustain the system. The culture of the colonized, rich in history and resilience, is certainly not exempt from this commodification. The U.S. and Western entertainment industry, a massive corporate affair of cultural imperialism, is a significant facet of cultural expression that serves neoliberal, capitalist, and imperialist interests. Through this industry and its relation to the capitalist state, Black entertainers and celebrities are able to be elevated to varying positions of influence, not merely as artists but as a type of cultural ambassador who help to sway public opinion and shape societal norms.
This phenomenon is not accidental. Neoliberal logic thrives on individualism and the illusion of meritocracy. By showcasing success stories of Black individuals who have ‘made it’ within the confines of capitalism, the system reinforces the narrative that the barriers imposed by racism and colonial oppression can be overcome through personal effort and engagement with the ‘free market’ alone. This narrative conveniently obscures systemic inequalities, diverting attention from collective action against structural injustices. With culture as merely a product under capitalism, not ‘a total way of life’ as historian Walter Rodney defined it, then its many forms of commodification become tools for maintaining the violent status quo.
But what I am not simply interested in pointing to the role of Black entertainers and culture within this system, but to show how in fact the turn towards neo-liberal capitalism and neo-colonialism necessitates a complicit ‘cultural elite’ class. While journalist Glen Ford coined the Black Misleadership Class in reference to politicians and does not mention the entertainment class in his definition, it is an invaluable class to assess, as Black entertainers and cultural figures are often elevated within this system not to empower the community, but to serve as symbols that reinforce exploitation and oppression. Their role of aligning the colonized masses with capitalist narratives and overshadowing collective struggles for individual schemas must be understood as parallel to the robust ‘political class’, and a result of the neo-liberalization of the economy and politics.
Present for many decades but exponentially increased since the time of Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign in 2008, this phenomenon blurs the lines between Black politicians and entertainers, as both groups are increasingly leveraged in tandem to advance the agendas of white capital. Celebrity endorsements of neoliberal policies give them a veneer of popularity and acceptance, lending to the astroturfing described earlier, further entrenching us within extremely oppressive systems. Cultural expressions that once served as forms of resistance are easily co-opted and repackaged in ways that neutralize their revolutionary potential.
The clearest examples of this can be found in former ‘political’ rapper KRS-One endorsing crooked cop Mayor Eric Adams, literally freestyle rapping for him on command, and former Public Enemy rapper Chuck D proudly accepting a position as a ‘cultural ambassador’ for the U.S. State Department, an institution with the blood of millions of colonized peoples on its hands. Almost as if a Boondocks parody, our Black cultural stalwarts twerking for the compradors responsible for the plunder of their own people is as laughable as it is stark.
And while these examples are glaring, they are not the sole essence of the phenomena. While the state certainly does utilize Black entertainers in a manner of ‘Black-washing’ similar to Zionist pinkwashing, there is another contradiction that arises from the environment of neo-liberalism that makes this possible. In addition to overt political endorsements, Black celebrities are used to reinforce neoliberal capitalism through their class’s extensive participation in (and dependency on) corporate branding, consumerism, and private capital. While some Black entertainers such as Chuck D, Jay-Z, KRS-One, and Kanye West may be fully aware of the roles they play in relation to the state, others are simply following the definition of ‘success’ which has been propagandized towards us for decades, and presented as the only viable solution for career longevity in a capitalist entertainment industry.
Figures like Megan Thee Stallion, for example, engage in endless brand partnerships, selling her name, likeness, and cultural relevancy to collaborations with corporations such as union-busting Amazon and Apartheid-Sabra — regardless of these companies’ broader social and political implications. The Stallion in just the last few years has had brand deals with Popeyes, Bitcoin, Amazon, CashApp, Sabra, Fashion Nova, Frito-Lays, Pepsi, Nike, Planet Fitness, and Calvin Klein, to name a few. Under neoliberalism, this relentless pursuit of corporate deals is celebrated as the hallmark of success and empowerment for the Black entertainer. While many of these corporations have well documented cases of worker abuse, racism, super-exploitation, union-busting, Zionist apartheid support, and other objectively negative implications for the Black masses, this is irrelevant to the entertainment class, whose goal is to leverage your ‘Blackness’ and cultural relevancy for the sake of capitalist corporations, not to build cultural empowerment, collective power, or even profound and relevant artworks.
The ability to construct and monetize one’s ‘brand’ and achieve an alleged individual prosperity is upheld as the ultimate success of the artist or entertainer, aligning with neoliberal values that prioritize personal gain and engagement with private capital over collective well-being. A similar example is Beyonce and billionaire Carter family, who lent their celebrity Blackness to Tiffany & Co(lonialism), the European colonial blood diamond empire. As organizer Salifu Mack notes in his excellent article “Understanding Exploitation through the “Saweetie Meal“, these brand collaborations are an ultimate exploitation of Black culture and identity, even if praised by the state:
“While many in the “diversity economy” created around the meal receive a material benefit (even if crumbs) from their participation in the event, the workers see no change in their material condition.
McDonald’s has not invested in the production, growing, or manufacturing of any additional raw materials for the Saweetie Meal. No new types of meat, potatoes, vegetables, etc. are necessary to prepare it. The meal itself is just a repackaging of resources that the billion-dollar company already accounts for in its supply chain. Therefore, the billion-dollar company does not take on any additional expenses in the creation of the “meal”. Remember, the only money going out of the billion-dollar company in order to create this experience is in the marketing, and the marketing will more than pay for itself.”
[…]
While the masses are discouraged from standing with exploited McDonald’s workers who fight for a living wage, they are encouraged to stand in support of this hi$toric moment of celebrity progress. As the NPR article reminds us, “Saweetie marks the first female musician, and the first African-American female musician, to have a celebrity menu collaboration with McDonald’s since the company kicked off its Famous Orders program”. In turn, capitalist value systems are reinforced. The hands preparing the meal do not matter and this is why we so often observe arguments that “they don’t deserve $15/hr for the work they do”, work we are taught to devalue. “If you don’t like this job, get another one”. “Working at Mcdonald’s is not meant to pay your bills anyway.”Don’t get it twisted, the bodies trying to break down the overly processed food don’t matter either. They are only valuable to the billion-dollar company so long as they continue to consume its product. But through the sheer act of consumption, those who enter the store to make the purchase are rewarded with the opportunity to “be closer” to the image created by the capitalist. Even if for just a few moments, just a few bites, a hierarchy is created within the working class between those who can afford the meal in the middle of the workday rush and those who prepare it.
This dynamic in both small and grand examples leads to celebrities being praised and legitimized through their accumulation of wealth and status within capitalist markets; the ability of a colonized individual to market and sell their very likeness to massive corporations is not seen as a newer, subtle form of exploitation and slavery, rather the desirable pathway. They become a symbol showcased as evidence that the system works, and more importantly that privatization and individualism work, thereby reinforcing the notion that socio-economic advancement is attainable solely through individual effort and market participation. However, this celebration evades the reality that it is the corporate, capitalist, and imperialist partnerships themselves that support and legitimize the individuals, while simultaneously legitimizing the corporations and their practices that contribute to systemic inequalities. By promoting consumerism without critically engaging with the ethical dimensions of their corporate affiliations, these entertainers perpetuate a harsh systems of exploitation and oppression impacting their own communities.
Neo-Colonial Capture: Merging Black Entertainer and Misleadership Classes
To reiterate, there are a few specific schemas that have increased in recent decades and seek to merge the Black entertainer class and the politician class underneath the banner of Black Misleadership Class:
- Explicit endorsement of political figures and policies, often but not exclusively associated with the neo-liberal capitalist Democratic party.
- Example: High-profile endorsements of candidates like Kamala Harris and Eric Adams, who advocate for “tough on crime” policies contribute to the expansion of the carceral state.
- The promotion of neo-liberal capitalism through consumerism.
- Example: The marketing of products, luxury brands and extravagant lifestyles to create the driving narrative that individual wealth, despite the political cost or contradictions, is synonymous with collective progress.
- Support for corporate-backed and private initiatives, typically for personal gain.
- Example: Widespread support for and promotion of charter schools, which are usually operated by private entities and undermine public education by transferring public funds into the private sector.
- De-politicizing cultural expression and redirecting activism into ‘safe’ channels.
- Example: When cultural expressions are commercialized, they necessarily undo any potential potency as tools of resistance; the multi-billion dollar recording label will not distribute the products which would lead to its own demise.
The Black entertainment class steers movements of the colonized into non-threatening directions that do not challenge the foundational structures of oppression, which they profit from; they become intermediaries between the state and the community, advocating for policies or initiatives that align with neoliberal objectives while appearing to represent community interests.
Just as the rebellions of the 1960s and 1970s developed dialectically alongside the political components of a Black elite political class, so too has this Black elite political class developed alongside its entertainment, cultural counterparts. As technology and industry advances, this relationship has crystalized into a mutually reinforcing one: the entertainment class is not just reinforcement for the ideological values of neoliberalism, but it plays a key role in priming the masses to accept the interplay between (Black) politicians and corporations, and the domination of private capital within the public sector. Under this convergence of neoliberal capitalism and neo-colonial practices, the Black entertainment class and political figures are increasingly merging into an amalgamation that serves the interests of white capital. The neoliberal emphasis on privatization and market-driven solutions has enabled both corporations and the state to exploit cultural expressions for profit while co-opting influential figures within colonized communities to legitimize their agendas.
As stated, when journalist Glen Ford coined the term “Black Misleadership Class,” he focused mainly on elected political figures—those who, despite their positions of influence, failed to advance the interests of the Black working class and instead perpetuated policies that reinforced systemic inequalities. However, in the era of neoliberal capitalism and neo-colonialism, we must pay special attention to how the boundaries between political and cultural leadership have been intentionally blurred. The Black entertainment class has risen to a level of socio-political influence within the capitalist system that parallels, and at times surpasses, that of traditional Black political officials in a myriad of ways.
By participating in these mechanisms, Black entertainers fulfill a role similar to that of the political figures Glen Ford described—a role that misleads the community by promoting agendas that ultimately serve the interests of the imperialist state and its elites.
The expansion of the Black Misleadership Class to more concretely include entertainers, whether that is Killer Mike standing next to Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms to scold Black protesters or Megan Thee Stallion twerking at a Kamala Harris rally, reflects the ever-evolving landscape of neoliberal capitalism. As the lines continue to blur, it becomes imperative to critically examine all sources exerting influence within our community. By doing so, we can better identify and challenge the forces that seek to undermine our collective liberation and maintain systemic oppression.
One can only assess how to combat this oppressive arrangement after properly understanding the material basis for a culture and cultural phenomenon. In a ‘part 2’ I will discuss the necessity of concepts such as cultural autonomy and media independence, which are vital strategies to combat these oppressive structures given the assessment we’ve made. If we understand that culture is a force of imperial power used against us, and that the so-called bearers of culture under capitalism have been nestled into the Black Misleadership Class, our strategies against co-optation and astroturfing must be organized and stem from that understanding.