Umm, hello? What are you doing here?  I’m not expecting anything for you until next week.

Well if you can believe it, I’m ahead of schedule.

Really?  That’s awesome, I knew you said you were settling into a new, productive routine but–

            And if you choose to subscribe to my $30 subscription package, you’ll get an extra essay each month, a personalized video of me discussing theory and access to my premium snapchat!

You … I’m sorry, what?

            Oh, did I forget to mention?  I’m officially embracing the content subscription model.

What are you talking about?  Where’d you get that idea?

            Uh…

Have you considered, even once in your life, not trying to make my life as difficult as possible?

             This is going to make your life easier, folks make bank on OnlyFans.  Plus, being on OnlyFans is going to get us more attention than using other services like Patreon.

If by “attention”, you mean folks are going to be wondering why you’re on a site primarily for sex workers, then yes.  Yes, it will garner attention, but not the attention you want.

            Hey, we support sex workers in this house; in the words of Killer Mike, I’m “Not a holy man, but I’m moral in my perverseness / So I support the sex workers unionizing their services”.

As do I, but surely you recognize people might think differently of your work if it’s on OnlyFans.  Even if you aren’t doing sex work!

            Probably.

Okay, let’s leave that question alone for now.  What’s this essay about?

            In Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion, we are presented with a number of perspectives on how to change (or not change) society for the better.  This question is investigated through the dynamics between the revolutionary protagonist Lelouch, his reformist foil Suzaku, and the numerous other revolutionary/counter-revolutionary characters.  And while set in an alternate reality, the themes addressed in this work pertain to issues as grand as global revolution to those as seemingly mundane as internet pornography.  And so, through the medium of critical writing, engagement with media like Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion can transform literary analysis into real-world prescriptions.

I honestly cannot stand you sometimes.  How am I supposed to sell people on an essay about an anime from 2006 and a pornographic site?

            Love you too, I’m sure you’ll figure it out.  Now, let’s talk about the media I want to focus on here: Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion (spoilers ahead).  Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion (or CGLL) is a 2 season-long anime set in an alternate reality where the earth is dominated by three superpowers.  Of these three, there is the EU (basically a federalized, centralized version of today’s EU), the Chinese Federation and the strongest of the three, the Holy Brittanian Empire (or HBE).  The series begins with the HBE’s invasion of Japan, one of the few remaining independent nations.  Through this conquest, Japan becomes a colony (referred to as Areas, of which Japan is Area 11).  Our protagonist is Lelouch vi Brittania, an exiled prince who, upon witnessing the conquest of Japan by Brittania, swears to destroy Brittania and free Japan.

            The show then moves to high schooler and disinherited Brittanian prince Lelouch getting involved with an apparent traffic accident, a truck having skid off the road.  As it is revealed, the truck was a Brittanian military vehicle holding a top-secret weapon that had been hijacked by Japanese freedom fighters.  Accidentally caught between the Japanese freedom fighters and the Brittanian military, Lelouch inadvertently activates the weapon, a large sphere.  To Lelouch’s shock, contained within the sphere is a green haired woman who refers to herself as CC.

CC then promises Lelouch the power to destroy Brittania and free Japan in return for partaking in a contract with her.  Lelouch accepts and is granted the power of geass, a vaguely defined power that appears to alter the mind of the holder.  In the case of Lelouch, his geass gives him the ability to control someone’s mind.  Specifically, after making eye-contact with a person, he can give them a single command that they must follow.  After making this contract, he is surrounded by Brittanian soldiers who are going to execute him, mistaking him as one of the Japanese freedom fighters.  Lelouch escapes this by using his geass to have all of the soldiers commit suicide.  You know, typical anime stuff.

Okay, I can imagine where this is going: another typical power fantasy anime.  Yawn.

            Oh hush.  I know this sounds par-for-the-course (for a weeb like you), but I assure you there’s more to this than meets the eye.  At risk of giving too detailed a summary, I’m going to give a broad overview of the events of Season 1 and 2 and then focus on a few events I feel are relevant to the discussion.

Do my eyes deceive me? You’re self-restraint in writing? Wonders never cease!

             So after escaping from the Brittanian soldiers and helping the aforementioned Japanese freedom fighters, Lelouch becomes the leader of the resistance group.  Renaming themselves the Black Knights, Lelouch takes on the moniker Zero and dons a black mask and cape in order to hide his identity.  This alternate identity allows him to maintain his high school life whilst leading the Black Knights to greater and greater victory.  This includes acquisition of weapons, expanding their size and name recognition,  and establishing relations with foreign powers (e.g. The Chinese Federation).  Lelouch is even able to win several outright military confrontations with the Brittanians despite being outgunned, once by wiping out a large number of enemy combatants by causing a landslide. 

Wait a second, that picture…

            Yes, it’s one of those animes where everyone is fighting in big robots.  In my opinion, the mech aspect of CGLL is mostly window-dressing, not particularly relevant to the themes of the work.

Anyways, while Lelouch is busy building this revolutionary group with the aid of his geass and intellect, his friend Suzaku is taking another approach.  Suzaku, despite being Japanese, has joined the Brittanian military and is hoping to reform it from the inside.  Due to the chaos caused by the Black Knights, Suzaku is given the opportunity to pilot an experimental mech, the Lancelot, allowing him to be incredibly successful and move up the military hierarchy.  He even manages to become the Personal Knight of Euphemia, a beloved Brittanian princess sympathetic to the Japanese cause with whom he develops a romantic relationship.  Due to his frequent clashes with the Black Knights, Suzaku develops a rivalry with Zero (at first unaware that it is Lelouch behind the mask)

And let me guess, the two realize they’re fighting for the same goal but using different methods, so they put aside their differences in order to free Japan.  Seen as heroes, Lelouch becomes the next leader of Japan while Suzaku marries Euphemia and retires to the countryside.  Predictable.

            Man, you have no idea how wrong you are.  In part inspired by her budding romance with Suzaku, Euphemia announces the creation of the Special Administrative Zone of Japan (SAZJ), an area in which Brittanians and Japanese would be of the same legal standing.  More than that, she specifically invites Zero and the Black Knights to help participate in the creation of the SAZJ.  At first this rattles Lelouch, as the SAZJ starts to cause defections from the Black Knights, who now saw a legal, non-violent method of Japanese liberation (despite still being a part of the HBE).  Despite this, Lelouch (as Zero) agrees to meet with Euphemia at the grand opening ceremony, attended by thousands of Japanese.  The two speak in private and have a genuine rapport, likely due to how close the half-siblings when they were younger.  This seems to convince Lelouch that he can trust Euphemia and he agrees to genuinely participate in the SAZJ, despite noting “there can only be one messiah” to liberate the Japanese.

And then they all lived happily ever after in the SAZJ?

            Not even a little bit.  Now, there was one aspect of geass I neglected to mention; with continued use, the geass becomes stronger and the user less able to control it.  Towards the end of their conversation, Lelouch jokes about how persuasive he can be, even going so far as to say he could even convince Euphemia to kill all the Japanese.  And, well, I’m sure you can imagine where this might be going.

Oh … Oh no …

            Oh yeah.  So Euphemia has the military slaughter the Japanese in and around the stadium, herself getting mortally wounded in the process.  This obviously destroys any recent trust between the Japanese and the HBE, causing a general upswell in support for the Black Knights (like Lelouch predicted).  The rest of the season 1 follows Zero and the Black Knights attempt to capture the Japanese capital and establish an independent Japan.

So, my gut wants to say “And then they live happily ever after?”  But uh… I have my doubts now

            Yeah, a safe bet.  Just when it seems that Zero and the Black Knights have the upper hand, Lelouch is informed that his sister, Nunnaly, has been taken hostage.  This sends Lelouch into a panic, causing him to leave the battlefield to retrieve her.  Without their leader, the Black Knights are defeated, with many captured or killed.  The fate of Lelouch, however, is unknown as the season ends on a cliff-hanger.

Hell of a way to end a season.  And what about Season 2?

            In very broad strokes, season 2 begins with Lelouch rebuilding the Black Knights.  This time, however, Lelouch spends much more time coalition-building, at first by gaining the support of the Chinese Federation.  However, Lelouch outwits the Chinese Federation, staging multiple uprisings in their colonial territories (notably India) which then join Japan in the United Federation of Nations.  Through their combined forces, Lelouch/Zero is able to take on the HBE directly.

Okay, this time I assume I can say “And then they live happily ever after” since they beat the Evil Empire and freed the oppressed nations?

            Well, not exactly.  Case-and-point:

See, there is this whole other plot line where Charles zi, Emperor of Brittania, has been doing research into geass to bring about “an age without lies”, as accomplished through the apocalyptic Ragnarök Connection.  We are not given much insight into what the age without lies is, but Charles zi describes it as a paradisiacal, pre-Fall state and that it will come about after an apocalyptic event, a pretty clearly an allusion to the fascist myth.  But due to some of the canonical mechanics of geass, Lelouch is able to disappear Charles zi, allowing Lelouch to take the throne himself. 

Does it become a “power corrupts” story?

            It’s … complicated.  Once in power, Lelouch strips the Brittanian nobility of their titles and privileges and starts granting autonomy to its various territories.  He basically becomes the archetypal Enlightened Despot, taking steps to liberate the various nations while still remaining an emperor.  His right-hand man is Suzaku, who has come to believe in Lelouch’s cause.  As the season progresses, however, Lelouch becomes increasingly authoritarian, even conquering the United Federation of Nations that he’d help build, bringing the entire world under HBE control.  For this, he becomes universally reviled.

… So it is a “power corrupts” story.

            Haven’t you learned by now that this show is basically all twists?  So Lelouch becomes the most reviled man in the world, responsible for the world’s ills.  He decides to hold a military parade in honour of having conquered the world when, out of nowhere, a familiar figure returns: Zero.

I thought Lelouch was Zero?

            Within the costume is Suzaku, fulfilling a promise to Lelouch.  This promise:

Suzaku fulfilled his promise to Lelouch … by killing him?

            You know it.  The reasoning?  Lelouch had accomplished his objective; he’d brought all the peoples of the world together (in what he referred to as an “Axis of nations”), gave them a common enemy (himself) and then destroyed that enemy.  After which, per Lelouch’s plan, all nations of the world could come together in a new-found peace.  I’m sure you can see why this is a perfect piece of media to discuss revolution.

I guess.  But before we get into that, you’ve piqued my interest.  What are the thematic issues you didn’t want to cover?

            Well it’s not that I don’t want to, it’s that I’ve already covered these subjects several times before.  And the essay would be unreasonably long if I tried to cover it.

Humour me, can you rapid-fire through it?

            Sure.  CC is revealed to be an immortal witch who has given the power of geass to people before.  So again, we have the witch as the anti-authority/revolutionary figure.  Tied into this is the colour of the  Black Knights; black being a colour associated with evil (much like how the witch was considered evil).  This plays into the whole “You call them terrorists, we call them freedom fighters” thing, where what one  considers or associates with evil (witches, the colour black, etc) reflects one’s beliefs.  There’s also a whole bunch of religious imagery, with the various mechs often posed in ways that have religious associations (especially the T-pose/cross).  This becomes even more clear with the character Orange’s mech, one of the few non-humanoid mechs, which looks like an ophanim.  Tied to the religious imagery is the Brittanian emperor’s quest for the Ragnarök Connection (itself a reference to Norse mythology), through which he intended to “kill god”.  And don’t even get me started on the Arthurian imagery, there’s–

Okay, yeah I get it, I get it.  You pick up on the witchy stuff.  No need to cover old ground.

            My thoughts exactly.  Now then, there are a few themes of particular interest in CGLL; questions of leadership type, revolutionary heritage, praxis, and reform vs revolution.  It even manages to touch on what the postcolonial state should be.

I can see why you were drawn to this.  So, what kind of leader is Lelouch?

            There are a number of ways to answer this question but I’d like to use Max Weber’s understanding of leadership.  Per Weber, leaders rely on three major kinds of authority in order to legitimate their rule: traditional, rational-legal and charismatic.  And while no leader relies purely on one form of authority, you can say a particular leader is traditional/rational/charismatic based on greater reliance on that form of authority.  These forms of authority are defined as such:

• Traditional Authority: This form of authority derives legitimacy from tradition or custom.  It is the king that says “I rule over this land because my father ruled over this land whose father also ruled over this land”.  Note here that this is not “The law says that I am to inherit this land” or “I would make for a good king”, traditional authority holds up the past as an argument in itself for its continuation.  While exemplified by hereditary kings and queens, it is not limited to this form.  For example, many clan-based groups are led by the eldest member, a form of traditional authority.
  • Historical Examples: Henry V (Henry IV’s son), Augustus Caesar (Julius’ adopted son)
• Rational-Legal Authority: This form of authority derives legitimacy from laws that legitimate their authority.  More than this, this form of authority exists only if there is the perception that the laws do (or theoretically can) make the lives of those under them better.  Note that, baked into this, this form of authority assumes that A: there are ways of making the world better (or worse) and B: that laws can be a method of making the world better or worse.  Most democratic governments rely on this kind of authority.
  • Historical Examples: François Hollande, Calvin Coolidge

Uh, odd choice.  Why not more well-known politicians, maybe Washington, Churchill or Lincoln?

            Their relative obscurity is actually the point.  Washington was “Father of the Nation”.  Churchill was Britain’s wartime hero.  Lincoln was “Honest Abe”.  That is, there is a bit of our final category surrounding those figures:

• Charismatic Authority: This form of authority is based on the perception that the leader has some essence or quality about them that makes them an ideal leader.  This does not mean the leader is charismatic in the traditional sense (i.e. smooth-talking, compelling), but that they have charism, the aforementioned unique essence.   The term fittingly coming from a religious origin, many religious leaders fall into this category.  That said, it is not limited to religious leaders, as the perception of charisma can be secular as well.  For example, why would Washington’s military leadership translate to good statesmanship in the eyes of Americans?  The answer is that it doesn’t.  That is, it doesn’t rationally follow unless Washington’s perceived military leadership and perceived statesmanship are understood as an outgrowth of his charisma, his unique essence.
  • Historical Examples: The Dalai Lama, The Pope (according to some interpretations of papal infallibility), Muhammad, Donald Trump, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin

Wow, that’s … uh … quite a range.

            Indeed.  The range suggests that our tendency to perceive (and be persuaded by) charisma is a psychological, cross-cultural phenomenon.  Charismatic leadership can be an extremely powerful tool, often allowing the leader to rally the people behind them and not be weakened by failures or setbacks.  The downside, as pointed out by Weber, is that charisma is hyper-localized to the individual and almost impossible to pass down to subsequent leaders.  While there are methods of charismatic succession, they do not usually succeed beyond the first few following leaders. 

Because of this, per Weber, the goal of a truly successful charismatic leader would be to establish traditional or rational-legal authority which then clarifies and stabilizes succession.  Washington, then, is a perfect example of this.  He certainly had accumulated enough charism to rule for life, probably even as a despot if he so chose.  Hamilton went so far as to suggest he should be president for life.  But by adhering to the laws of the system, Washington legitimized the rational-legal authority (the US government) he helped build.  In fact, by not ruling for life, he imparted his charism onto the new US government, essentially saying “This system governs even me, someone who has the authority of charisma”.  Many hereditary kings and queens also justified their traditional authority by referencing charismatic leaders, like the English Plantagenet dynasty (of Henry V fame) claiming to be descendants of the mythical King Arthur.

Okay, so how does this relate to CGLL?

            Well, I think it’d be a pretty straight-forward reading to point out that Lelouch is a charismatic leader.  The members of the Black Knights believe to an almost religious extent in his ability to deliver them victories.  This happens even when his decisions are strategically bad ones, usually whenever he prioritizes saving his sister Nunnaly.  Lelouch does set up a rational-legal authority (the leadership hierarchy of the Black Knights), but it’s very clear that it’s subordinate to his charismatic authority.  For example, when Lelouch briefly disappears, his second in command Ohgi almost cannot believe he’s in charge.  Even after internalizing this, he couches all of his decisions in the language of “Well this is what Zero would have done”.  His commander, Todoh, is slightly more independent, but he too has some charismatic authority.  He pulled off Japan’s only military victory against the HBE during its initial invasion, referred to as the Miracle of Istukushima.  This suggests to me that while Lelouch attempted to use his charisma to endow the Black Knights with rational-legal authority, he did not do so very effectively.

            I’d like to add one other aspect; there is a reading of geass as charisma itself.  Let’s consider what Lelouch’s geass does, it allows him to influence the minds of people in a way that is largely inexplicable.  This is charisma in a nutshell; an essence or quality that makes a person uniquely able to lead.  More than that, remember that charism historically referred to a gift bestowed on people by god or some magical entity.  In fact, etymologically charism derives from Greek, meaning “gift of grace”.  This maps perfectly onto the canonical origin of geass, as Lelouch received geass from CC, a witch.  Thus Lelouch’s geass, an essence makes him uniquely able to lead and was bestowed on him by a magical entity, is almost the exact definition of charisma (in both the historical and Weberian sense).

Interesting, alright, I buy it.  But this doesn’t really say anything about revolution per se, just about leadership.

            I agree, so let’s try to tease this apart.  So, is there any indication of what kind of revolution takes place in CGLL; liberal, leftist or rightist?

Rightist Revolution?  But doesn’t the political right value tradition and hierarchy?  I thought they didn’t do revolution?

            So, yes and no.  The most common rightist ‘revolution’ is counter-revolution, but I would argue that’s not a true revolution.  The idea behind counter-revolution is the use of violence in order to re-establish a previous order that is seen as good, proper and natural.  As it is not trying to establish a new order, I would not argue this is properly revolutionary (good or bad).  Counter-revolution is also a bit problematic ideologically for rightists.  For example, if traditional hierarchies naturally assert themselves (and because of this naturalness, are necessarily good), aren’t all revolutionary movements doomed to fail?  Isn’t the need for counter-revolutionary violence to suppress revolutionary movements evidence that the traditional hierarchies are not so ‘natural’ after all?  Moreover, after a revolution, isn’t the post-revolutionary state now the ‘natural’ order and thus should be supported by rightists?  This suggests the rightist is not so much committed to ‘natural’ hierarchy/order, but to a particular hierarchy/order that they arbitrarily prefer.

            Outside of religious rightisms (theocractic, clerical, etc), true revolutionary rightist movements are generally fascistic.  Fascist revolution is not counter-revolution but revolution against revolution.  The fascist worldview believes in a world in decay that is beyond saving through traditional rightist response, a recognition and rejection of the course of history.  Thus, in the mind of the fascist, one has to use the tools of modernity in order to beat back the inevitable, to have a revolution against the coming revolution, to use the fruits of rationalism against rationality.  In the case of Nazism, it was the use of tanks, modern medicine and gas chambers in order to revive and safeguard the ‘traditional’ German peasant life.  It is a more developed form of the belief of Joseph de Maistre, a Savoyard protofascist who believed “The whole earth … is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause.”  De Maistre is absolutely fascinating (if disturbing) and I fully intend on giving his work greater attention in a later essay.

            I think it’s pretty clear that CGLL does not portray a rightist revolution.

Wow that was … disturbing … though I agree, that probably isn’t the kind of revolution shown in CGLL.  What then of liberalism or leftism?

            Well, let’s start by considering what Lelouch considers the end goal of his revolution to be, specifically what he sees the role of Japan post-revolution.

            Lelouch says the new Japan will be one accepting of “all peoples, histories and ideologies … where the weak shall not oppress the weak”.  And while this reads to my anarchist-inclined ear as a leftist proclamation, I suspect a liberal would hear the promises of liberalism in this as well.  This is not surprising, there are a lot of ideological overlaps between liberals and leftists.  And some have argued that one of the major differences between liberals and leftists is that while both are anti-domination at their core, liberals do not see class (and the power relations entailed) as inherently coercive while leftists do.  That said, many liberals will agree that class relations can be coercive/exploitative, so showing how this is an inevitable outcome of class is an effective approach for leftists radicalizing liberals.

So it could be either liberal or leftist?

            Yeah, I think both readings would be justified based on the transcript alone.  I do think, however, that how revolutionary change is accomplished evokes leftism.  Specifically, I’d argue Zero appears to be following Trotskyist praxis.  To keep this from getting too long, I’ll outline some core tenants of Trotskyist praxis and how they fit into CGLL (rather than going into all the other schools of praxis, which would take a dissertation-length response).  Note that many of these items are accepted in other leftist schools but either originate in or are strongly associated with Trotskyism.

• Vanguardism
  • This is the idea that the revolution should be led by a professional class of revolutionaries and supported by working people.  The argument goes that only those with the time and education to be full-time revolutionaries have the means to see the revolution through, hence the need for a vanguard.  One of the vanguard’s major responsibilities is to set a party platform and to create organizations that the average person can join.  It’s sort of a “If you build it, they will come” approach to revolution, whereby “you” is the vanguard, “they” is the average person, and “come” is overthrowing the state.
  • This is seen most clearly in Lelouch, who is essentially a full-time revolutionary.  He not only sets the priorities for the Black Knights, but also lays the groundwork for recruiting.  This is a very top-heavy example of vanguardism as the other members of the vanguard (Ohgi, Kallen, Todoh, etc) play little role in decision-making.
• Entryism
  • I spoke about this in an earlier essay referring to ecofascists, but it is a technique perfected by Trotskyists.  This refers to the purposeful entry of a group into a  larger party with the intention of converting its members and/or reorienting the party politically.  This was famously accomplished by French Trotskyists in what is referred to as the French Turn.
  • This is represented when Lelouch, as emperor of the HBE, attempted to enter the United Federation of Nations.  As the leaders of other nations noted, the HBE’s great size would mean that the HBE (and by extension, Lelouch) could effectively single-handedly dictate the decisions of the United Federation of Nations, very much Lelouch’s intention.
• Permanent Revolution
  • This one’s a doozy, so bear with me.  The orthodox Marxist view is that socialist revolution can only take place in a sufficiently developed capitalist country.  Only then, per Marx, would socialism be able to sustain and defend itself against the aggression of capitalist countries.  Trotsky, while he wouldn’t have phrased this as a disagreement, was of a different opinion.  Per Trotsky, a successful revolution can occur in an economically under-developed nation (e.g. Russia) as long as that post-revolution nation serves to inspire or aid revolutionary movements in more economically developed nations.  In the case of Russia, there was a not-unfounded belief that Germany was on the cusp of revolution, as evidenced by the Spartacist Uprising.  Thus, revolution in under-developed nations is neither futile nor a waste of revolutionary zeal.
  • This is seen in the differences between season 1 and season 2 of CGLL.  In season 1, Lelouch focused exclusively on revolution within Japan, effectively ignoring the rest of the world.  Canonically the first failed revolution was due to Lelouch leaving the battlefield, but I think it’s not unreasonable to imagine that the rebellion would’ve been a failure even with Lelouch’s participation.  After all, one revolutionary group’s military (even if enhanced by Lelouch’s geass) versus the military of a near worldwide empire are not particularly good odds.  In season 2, having learned his lesson, Lelouch participates frequently in geopolitics (e.g. getting temporary backing from the Chinese Federation) and directly inspiring revolution worldwide (e.g. in India).  That is, recognizing that Japan alone is insufficiently developed, Lelouch sought to inspire and have solidarity with other revolutionary movements; permanent revolution in a nutshell.

• Transitional Demand
  • This is fairly straight-forward and refers to any concession gained that, while not directly achieving the revolutionary goal, either strengthens the revolutionaries or weakens the counter-revolutionaries.  A clear example of this would be the 8-hour workday won for Americans by the IWW.  While an 8-hour workday didn’t directly achieve socialism, it did increase the relative power of workers compared to capitalists.  Note that a transitional demand is not the same as reformism; while a transitional demand can be achieved through reform (i.e. working within the political structure), it can also be from a demand made outside of the political structure (e.g. through striking or military action).
  • This can be seen in the acquisition of Horai Island by the Black Knights, an artificial island populated by revolutionary Japanese and others.  While this didn’t serve the ultimate revolutionary goal of liberating Japan and the other nations of the world, it did serve as a home base for the Black Knights.  And by not having to operate in enemy territory (i.e. on Japan proper), this increased the relative strength of the Black Knights in comparison to the HBE.

But you never answered the bigger question; does CGLL have a revolutionary or reformist message?

Fortunately for me, I believe this question is addressed quite explicitly.  The work obviously focuses much more on Lelouch/Zero’s revolution rather than Suzaku et al.’s reformism.  While it’s tempting to then suggest that this suggests a pro-revolution message, I’d be remiss to not mention that reformism doesn’t have (for lack of a better term) the same sex appeal that revolution has.  As such, it is far easier to make compelling media about action-packed revolutions than about the subtleties of incremental change. 

Did … did you just post a screencap from a pornographic website?

            Don’t give me grief, I covered the nudity.  So while acknowledging the natural tendency to focus on the spectacle of revolution, what does CGLL say about both approaches?  The work’s take on revolution seems pretty straight-forward.  The first failed revolution, the secondary successful revolutions among Chinese Federation colonies and the final revolution against Lelouch himself are portrayed as generally good things.  Of course though, there are nuances to this.  For example, it shows the human cost of bloody revolution, both among participants (Japanese and Brittanian) and neutral bystanders.  Additionally, it also argues that not all revolutionary movements are created equal.  The first half of season 1 spends a great deal of time pointing out the differences between the Black Knights and the misguided Japanese Liberation Front.  So this is definitely a positive portrayal of revolution, if with certain caveats.

But that seems like pretty tepid support.  I feel like anyone can theoretically support revolution with caveats, because the rub lies in what those caveats are.

            You’re not entirely wrong, but I do think that support becomes clearer when contrasted with how it approaches reformism.  There are essentially two reformist thrusts within the work, Suzaku’s ascension through the military hierarchy and the attempts at creating the SAZJ by Euphemia (and later Nunnaly).  As mentioned before, Suzaku entered the military with the hopes of changing it from the inside.  As Japanese were largely not allowed to participate in the military, his ascension inspires both awe and disgust among the Japanese.  The former looked on Suzaku as a bright future where Japanese and Brittanians may live as equals, the latter describing him as a traitor to his people by serving their oppressors.  The critical voices generally drown out the positive ones, especially in season 2 as Lelouch turns towards authoritarianism and Suzaku is increasingly used to put down Lelouch’s opponents.

            And what does his participation within the military gain?  Certainly Suzaku improves his own station, but we don’t see improvement of the general Japanese condition.  In fact, he often works directly against Japanese liberation in literal combat against the Black Knights.  Indirectly, his success is co-opted in order to decrease Japanese revolutionary zeal; “See, if you work within the system, you too can become like Suzaku!”  This is all despite the fact that this same military would have executed Suzaku early on in season 1, framing him for the death of Prince Clovis of the HBE, had it not been for Lelouch’s intervention.  This raises allusions to the Dreyfus Affair, in which the French military framed a Jewish French military officer, accusing him of treason that resulted in defeat by Prussia (later Germany) in the Franco-Prussian War.  Suzaku, then, accomplishes less than nothing in his quest to liberate Japan through reformism due to the anti-revolutionary effects of his military career.  In fact, the only major victory Suzaku brings the Japanese was unintentional; his relationship with Euphemia inspiring her to call for the creation of the SAZJ.

If Suzaku’s reformism didn’t do anything, and we know what happened with Euphemia, I guess that settles it.  This is a distinctly anti-reformist piece.

            Well I wouldn’t say that exactly yet.  Of course Euphemia’s attempt at establishing the SAZJ ended in a massacre, but I don’t think that the takeaway is that reformism is categorically useless.   Portrayal of the SAZJ in CGLL is generally positive, if an imperfect or insufficient solution.  It is shown generally in the widespread Japanese enthusiasm for the project (as demonstrated by the large crowd at the opening-ceremony-turned-massacre).  This is further personalized in the interracial relationship between the Japanese Ohgi and the Brittanian Viletta, with the SAZJ being the only place their relationship could flourish.  What this demonstrates to me is an acknowledgement by the author, Ichirō Ōkouchi, that reformism can bring tangible, non-insignificant improvements in quality of life.

            Now, not everyone reacts positively to this development.  Lelouch immediately recognizes the SAZJ as a threat to the Black Knights.  While he believes that Euphemia does genuinely support Japanese liberation, Lelouch recognizes that this will undermine the Black Knights.  Because, after all, why would you risk your life engaging in dangerous revolutionary work if you can achieve meaningful progress at no risk.  Lelouch is vindicated in this belief as news comes in of various defections among the Black Knights to the SAZJ.  But this is not a narcissistic concern (or arguably, not only a narcissistic concern) where Lelouch is frustrated at not playing the role of hero, but a genuine criticism of the SAZJ.  First off, he notes the fact that participants in the SAZJ would still be Brittanian citizens and that the SAZJ could be dismantled whenever it became politically expedient.  For a contemporary example, see the recent stripping of autonomy from Hong Kong by the mainland Chinese government.  For a more dystopian example, you can also consider the fact that there is nothing in the US constitution that would theoretically prevent the removal of the 13^th or 19^th amendment (let alone protections for queer people, as upheld by the courts).  Without true independence (and a way of maintaining that independence), Lelouch recognizes, the liberation of the Japanese is contingent upon the will of the HBE.

            Lelouch also seems to echo sentiments similar to those expressed by Frantz Fanon in his magnum opus Les Damnés de la Terre (The Wretched of the Earth in English).  Fanon was born in Martinique, then a small French colony in the Caribbean, and studied psychiatry.  To greatly simplify his thinking, Fanon argues colonialism changes the psychology of both the colonizer and the colonized.  During the act of colonization, the colonizer enacts violence on the colonized, placing them in a weakened position (i.e. through the direct act of violence) and in an exploited/reliant position (i.e. the colonized has to participate in and is reliant on the colonial structures to meet their basic needs, despite those structures exploiting them).  This position of simultaneous weakness and exploitation/reliance retroactively justifies the act of colonial violence in the mind of the colonizer, “Look how reliant they are on us, imagine what a worse state they’d be in if we, the Bringers of Civilization™, hadn’t intervened.  Thank goodness we established this colony!”  It also impacts the psychology of the colonized, “I may resent Imperial Power X, but I wouldn’t be able to make ends meet if I were not involved in certain colonial structures”.  Anticolonial violence, then, is key for undoing the psychological impacts of colonialism.  Anticolonial violence destroys the illusion of weakness or passivity in the colonized (in a fairly straightforward manner), but it also affirms the possibility of a postcolonial future.  This is because the colonized directing violence at colonial structures, structures upon which colonized people are theoretically reliant, suggests that there are other structures that could support these colonized people.  That is, it implies the possibility of a postcolonial future maintained by postcolonial structures.

            It is for this reason that Fanon holds a quite controversial belief, one I believe echoed by Lelouch; liberation freely given by the colonizer (i.e. without anticolonial violence) is not true liberation.  This is because, without the liberation being on the terms of the colonized, there is no act that affirms the non-dependence of the colonized on the colonizer.  Lelouch, when discussing the SAZJ with Euphemia, expresses a similar sentiment.  He notes that Euphemia simply giving the Japanese liberation is not true liberation and is, in fact, worse than what the colonialist Clovis did to the Japanese.  This mirrors Fanon’s argument, as independence given on the terms of the colonizer effectively closes off the possibility of the colonized winning their independence themselves (and thus undoing the psychological effects of colonialism).  Arguably, this is why it was so important that Lelouch, a Brittanian, was not the one to ultimately win the world’s liberation and why his “assassination” was done by the figure of Zero.  Had Lelouch simply conquered the world and then liberated each nation, he would be mirroring Euphemia’s actions and denying the world the chance to win independence themselves and undo the psychological effects of colonialism.

Heavy.  But more than that, is Fanon advocating violence in anticolonial contexts?

            To begin, I’m simply outlining some of Fanon’s beliefs and how similar they are to those expressed by Lelouch.  Fanon’s usage of the term “violence” changes over time and in different contexts, mirroring our wide application of the term.  For example, anticolonial violence can be anything from direct military conflict to general strikes to the usage of “Whites Only” water fountains by black people. But regardless of how wide that definition is, Fanon believes violence, colonial or anticolonial, has negative impacts on both parties and thus should only be viewed as a sometimes-necessary evil.

So then what is CGLL’s overall view on reform versus revolution?

            Well it seems to tilt in the favour of revolution while still recognizing the genuine improvements that reform can bring.  At the same time, it also recognizes that reformism can sap revolutionary energy (e.g. with the SAZJ).  These are not mutually exclusive beliefs and a mixture of the two opinions is held by many of the greats in leftist thought.  The argument goes that reformism is always going to be insufficient and unjustly slow for oppressed people, but that those reforms can make tangible improvements in their lives.  Thus revolution should always be pursued, but reformism can be simultaneously pursued insofar as it doesn’t actively obstruct from the ultimate goal of revolution.  Now, there are some clear examples of reforms that are directly anti-revolutionary (e.g. increased wages in return for decreased worker’s rights) and should be opposed.  But there are also reforms that tend to sap revolutionary zeal, but don’t do so necessarily (e.g. the SAZJ, pink/green capitalism, etc).  These kinds of reforms should be pursued, but the messaging on them needs to be clear; “We want this reform because we want this grander goal ultimately” or “This is a good first step but not sufficient”.  The key is to portray reform as part-and-parcel of the larger revolutionary goal.

Alright, fair enough.  But what about after the revolution?  It’s all well and good to overthrow the government, but what comes after is as important (if not more).

            Absolutely, and I believe there’s some commentary on the nature of postcolonial states in CGLL as well.  In a lot of media featuring colonization or imperialism, the ending consists of defeating the colonial/imperial power and a sort of post-script scene.  You know the kind of scene I’m referring to, we see all of the major characters going joyously about their daily lives.  Usually there’s some indication of the protagonist and their love interest ending up together; that sort of thing.  Now while there is a sort of post-script scene in CGLL (one that suggests Lelouch may have survived, interestingly), it is specifically not a return to life before the events of the show or the rise of the global superpowers.  In fact, Lelouch had outlined specifically this in earlier scenes.  In response to Euphemia’s proclamation of the SAZJ, Lelouch rebuts her through internal monologue, saying “the past is dead and gone”.  Later, after the slaughter of Japanese in the stadium, Zero clarifies that while he is declaring the independence of Japan, this is not “the resurrection of the old nation of Japan”.  Such a goal, “to wind back the clock of history”, would be a mistake in his view.

That seems somewhat strange.

            Not really, most anticolonial or indigenous activists don’t advocate a sort of return-to-the-past agenda.  For example, you would be hard-pressed to find respected Native American/Indigenous activists that support shipping colonizers back to the country from which they came.  Along similar lines, the Back-to-Africa movement, a movement encouraging emigration of American and British Blacks to Liberia and Sierra Leone respectively, did not see widespread popularity among POC.  Or consider the fact that the resurgent Hawaiian identity still holds Christianity as a central part of the identity (the effect of American and British missionaries).  Or consider that King Kamehameha I of Hawai’i decided to create a flag that was a mixture of the American and British flags in order to signal their influence on the kingdom.

But why is this the case?

            Colonialism has an impact on the colonized’s identity.  For example, part of the self-understanding of identity among the numerous Native American groups is a self-understanding as a historically (and in most cases, also currently) colonized and oppressed group.  It also creates new ways of identification; where once the Haudenosaunee and Chumash would have seen no mutual identification now also see each other both as part of a larger Native American identity.  Similarly, while African slaves in the US came from very disparate cultures, largely in western and central Africa, many descendants identify as African-American.  This identity is absolutely distinct from the numerous cultures from which slaves were taken (Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, etc).  Consider Malcolm X’s understanding of his name, the X symbolizing that his heritage had been taken from him (i.e. he may never know where his ancestors came from).  And because of the impact of colonialism on identity, an attempt to “return” to a pre-colonization state would actually rip away aspects of the colonized people’s identities.

Okay, interesting.  But what does this have to do with the postcolonial state?

            To understand this, I’m going to attempt something ambitious.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I am going to attempt to cite Hegel.  May God have mercy on our souls.

Weren’t you the guy who said there have only been two people mad enough to actually understand Hegel?  Marx and The Giant of Ljubljana?

While Hegel is deeply complicated (and I want to emphasize I only have a very broad-strokes understanding), I think his work can be extremely useful when applied properly.

Okay, lay it on me.  What’s Hegel on about?

            Hegel was a theoretician of dialectics, the philosophy of how systems change.  Per Hegelian dialectics, systems change according to the logic of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.  Thesis is essentially the original element that is opposed by the antithesis.  That is, the thesis and antithesis are contradicting forces.  The synthesis, the more interesting term, is the settling of the contradiction in a logically consistent manner.  The synthesis then becomes the thesis for another round of dialectics.  Hegel’s classic example is the evolution of the idea of liberty.

• Thesis: Liberty as complete freedom of action.  This unrefined idea of liberty is everyone doing whatever they want with no restrictions.  Think “Ain’t no laws when drinking White Claw”.
  • Notably, because there are no restrictions on freedom, many people have their freedom infringed on by other people’s actions.
• Antithesis: The opposite of liberty, total lack of freedom in action.  Think 1984.
• Synthesis: Liberty as we now understand it: the ability to do what one wants as long as it doesn’t infringe on others.  Think Social Contract.
  • This involves both the thesis (freedom of action) and the antithesis (total restriction of action).  The synthesis, you’ll note, is not just the midpoint between thesis and antithesis, but a unique blending thereof.

            You can also dialectics to the evolution of an idea of identity or nation.  As an example, let’s use Hawaiian identity to explore this (as it’s one I’m slightly more familiar with).

• Thesis: Hawaiian culture and identity pre-contact.  Notably, this includes native Hawaiian religion, the Kapu system and the Hawaiian language.
• Antithesis: American culture as imposed on the Hawaiians.  This includes the imposition of Protestantism, destruction of the Kapu system and the English language.
• Synthesis: Modern Hawaiian culture that both acknowledges its pre-contact roots (embracing the Hawaiian language) and the impacts of colonialism on identity (embracing Protestantism and discarding the Kapu system).  In modern Hawaiian culture, there is the acknowledgement that Protestantism and the destruction of Kapu came with colonialism.  However, the embracement of Protestantism and destruction of Kapu is not seen as an intrusion on a ‘pure’ Hawaiian pre-contact culture, but an authentic embrace of these changes that is independent of its historical imposition by American colonization.

Again, interesting, but I fail to see how this relates to the postcolonial state.

            Žižek has applied the idea of Hegelian dialectics to a number anticolonial and emancipatory movements in his work First as Tragedy, Then as Farce and his lecture The Hegelian Wound at New York University.  We’ve already demonstrated the dialectics of a colonized nation; pre-colonization is the thesis, the colony the antithesis, and post-colonization the synthesis.  Žižek’s main point is that colonization opens up certain emancipatory futures because it represents a radical break with the past, a so-called Hegelian wound.  That is, the logic and values that justify the removal of exploitative colonial power can then be turned inwards to tear down pre-colonial/native exploitative structures.  As examples of this, Žižek points to the abolition of the caste system in post-colonial India or the embracement of racial equality and Enlightenment values in revolutionary Haiti.  He is of course not saying that colonialism is a good thing, simply that there lies the potential for a brighter postcolonial future that is greater than simply “turning back the clock” to the precolonial state.

Well Lelouch says, in more or less words, he’s building ‘a new Japan’, but how do you know that this is really the dialectical synthesis?  Why do you think this isn’t just a return to pre-colonial Japan?

            Good question!  I believe this is the case because we have a faction that represents pre-colonial Japan, the Tokyo House.  This is a group of six traditional Japanese leaders who were appointed to be collaborators with the HBE by overseeing Japanese industry (despite them supporting revolutionary groups).  Unlike other Japanese, they are frequently portrayed as sticking to traditional Japanese customs; often framed in front of shoji or near a shishi-odoshi.  Early on in the program, they are shown supporting the Japanese Liberation Front, also frequently portrayed as a sort of turn-back-the-clock revolutionary group (often portrayed in front of Japanese flags).  They are often framed as crude or backward, as being stuck in the past, unlike the forward-looking Lelouch.  So when the only surviving member of the Tokyo House eventually opposes Lelouch, it is no surprise that he has no issue discarding Tokyo House.  That is, Lelouch is applying the logic and values of anticolonialism towards Tokyo House (a pre-colonial exploitative structure), thus representing a synthesis.

Well, I guess you can add that to the resume: “Once cited Hegel half-decently”.

            I’d like to thank my parents, the academy and my extreme boredom during quarantine.  Now, in very broad strokes, the idea of the Hegelian wound is applicable to our current situation.  What jarring break with the past/thesis could I be referring to?  Well, the election of Donald Trump of course.

            For those who hadn’t been closely following the radicalization of the GOP as the country became increasingly diverse, the election of Trump was jarring.  It was a trauma in the Lacanian sense, something that could not be incorporated into the landscape of symbols.  And while it is clear that the election of Trump has been nothing but a tragedy for this country, there lies in his election radical, emancipatory potential.

Are you one of those leftists that thinks we should vote Trump?

            Oh no, I’m definitely voting Biden.

Better justify that one to your readers, you’ve had a few Bernie or Bust-types in your comments.

            Of course, and I say all of this as someone who was an avid Bernie supporter.  On just about every issue, especially social issues, Biden is better than Trump.  His policies may not go nearly far enough, but he certainly won’t be stripping rights from BIPOC, queer people or other marginalized groups.  Biden has even shown some willingness to move left on some issues (climate, labour rights, etc).  This extends into the question of the supreme court, where we cannot afford another Trump appointee.  Secondly, while the election of Biden won’t aid revolutionary action, the election of Trump would certainly hurt it.  Trump has shown time and time again that he’s willing to use all powers available to him (and then some, like encouraging vigilantism) to crack down on opposition.  We may be hindered under Biden, but at least we can organize at much less risk.  And finally, for the accelerationist types that believe Trump’s election will radicalize people to the left and so is worth the cost, you need to contend with history.  Bernie underperformed in the 2020 primary in major part because people were so frightened by Trump, they’d be willing to take anyone that isn’t him.  And since radical politics is always going to be seen as less electable than moderate politics, Trump’s re-election would only guarantee an even more milquetoast Democratic candidate in 2024.  You’d also have to justify a simply horrendous amount of suffering on the part of (mainly) marginalized Americans just to push people left.  And no reasonable leftist, one who doesn’t confuse means for ends, should be okay with that.

But, is voting for Biden the return-to-past/thesis you just argued against?

            No, though I get why you might think that.  While the suffering that took place under the Trump administration is a tragedy, the struggle against him parallels anticolonial struggles in its opening of emancipatory potentials.  In my view, the rhetoric used and values espoused in order to combat Trump can (and will) be used inwardly after his defeat.  That is, once Trump is gone, the inconsistencies and cruelties of the pre-Trump neoliberalism of Biden will be laid bare and subject to critique.  The legacy of the Hegelian wound of Trump will be our (progressive/leftist) ability to take on the neoliberal consensus for its own inconsistencies and cruelties.  We see the first evidence of this in the slow-but-sure shift left of Biden in response to the ascendant left-wing of the Democrats.  My belief then is that we must get Biden elected, party and drink ourselves silly for a week, and then immediately set about pushing him further left and getting progressive/leftist allies into positions of power.  We have to constantly and relentlessly show that the issues of Trump exist still within Biden (though to a lesser extent) and thus should be fought against.  Such a line, the engagement with the Hegelian wound, will have impacts both on electoralism and well beyond it.  And that is why I began this essay by referencing OnlyFans.

I was wondering when you’d get to that.

            Generation Z is arguably the most progressive generation seen in the US since the early 20^th century.  This is in no small part due to the series of shocks (or Hegelian wounds) they’ve experienced in their short time on earth; 9/11, the Great Recession of 2008 and the election of Trump (to name just a few).  These shocks, alongside far greater access to non-mainstream voices through the internet, have made them perfectly comfortable questioning the claims of neoliberalism or social mores arising from the Reagan era or earlier.  This is shown perfectly in attitudes towards sex work, where young people in the US overwhelmingly support decriminalization of sex work.  It is then no surprise that 2020 represents the first year over half of Americans support decriminalizing sex work (with a heavy skew towards the young).  Because not only is Generation Z (reasonably) sceptical of earlier generations, it is the most connected generation.  And that connection means that they may well be scrolling through their Twitter or Instagram feed and see a post or thread in favour of sex work or by a sex worker.  There is almost no comparable experience for earlier generations.  Moreover, the democratizing effect of the internet means anyone can be a sex worker (from the safety and comfort of your own home no less)!  So it’s no wonder that young people are increasingly accepting of sex work.  And as attitudes change, so too can the coercive structures that disenfranchise and endanger sex workers and, more broadly, other marginalized groups.  Thus these young people, who have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, are much more willing to question the society that produced that outrageous fortune and much more likely to have the rhetorical tools to reject that society.

So, after all that, what’s your takeaway? 

            While we often think about revolution as a simple matter, “When the good guys take the capital”, the truth is that it is far more complicated.  We shoot ourselves in the foot from the get-go if we don’t consider the “Who?”, “How?” and “What afterwards?” of revolution.  But more than this, we fail particularly when we fail to consider the “Why?” with absolute precision and clarity.  It is how movements confuse ends with means with dead-ends, a disappointment all too familiar at this point.  This, combined with the greatly discouraging reality of shocks like Trump, can make it easy to despair.  But in reality, these disruptions can be capitalized on if approached properly.  If crisis management politics is paired with institutional critique, these lowest moments can serve as a jumping-off point for future success.  But we can only do so if we are clear about our goals and our methods.  At risk of massaging my own ego, perhaps it is there we find the purpose of critical writing.  Through critical writing, we can make clear why we undertake the ever-difficult task of making the world a better place.  And that, I think, makes it entirely worthwhile.