It's becoming fashionable for some Online Communists to speak derisively of how other Online Communists do too much theory, not enough organizing.
I think the opposite is the case. People don't even agree on what to think of China!
Assata's writing on the subject is insightful:
First of all, this is Twitter.
You should be doing one of two things: sharing interesting theory, or telling people *precisely* what exciting initiative they should get involved with.
The much more common and vague "organize!" is reminiscent of liberals yelling "learn to code!"
Some had mild success, some ended up in death, tears, frustration, wasted energy, and jadedness.
If something is lacking, it's a coherent, amply discussed, widely shared *theory* that systematically learns from each of these events.
I think this theory more or less already exists, and it's often called Marxism-Leninism.
I think, in spite of it basically existing as a spectre in North America, it very much haunts its ideological competitors in what is sometimes called the "far left."
Content vs. branding:
My personal advice is this: You won't be able to tell if your local organization is *right* for you if you don't know what you believe or desire.
For me, given I was already Very Online, it's much easier to begin by reading than by affiliating, and I know I'm not alone in this.
I realized I wanted to work with people who were first and foremost internationalists.
That rejected CIA propaganda, that were vigilant against sinophobia, that were aware of "gusanos."
That's me. You'll have other priorities, but I suggest identifying them before affiliating.
And honestly, even *after* affiliating, I think the best thing I've done is start a reading club with some friends.
We get together once a week and read essays. Some of us are entry level in orgs, others are just curious, but that's not nothing in times of physical isolation.
My point here is that even the radical fringes of our society worship entrepreneurship, and I disagree that people outside academia err on "too much theory, not enough action."
When questions like "What's up with China?" are closed, we'll speak of too much theory. Not before.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
toads from the AP and The Economist are furious that China has a large Uyghur population from which to draw positive testimony to counter their latest wave of atrocity propaganda
"how *dare* China present happy Uyghurs to oppose our angry, CIA-funded, regime-change Uyghurs!? 🤬"
I was reading a (bad) essay on Mao Zedong by Zizek a while back, and this bit from him by it always stuck with me.
Zizek is literally quoting *Robert Conquest* (lol), but what made an impression was that the idea of the "subkulak" was so easily dismissed: lacan.com/zizmaozedong.h…
In 1934 he was interviewed by the extremely famous "Shakespeare of science fiction," H. G. Wells. The questions Wells posed Stalin may as well have been posed by anxious, liberal me. redsails.org/stalin-and-wel…
The dismissive understanding of identity as trap parrots the position of its alleged opponents and simply gives it a negative meaning:
one can’t be [X] and be anything more than that at the same time; one can’t be [X] and understand anyone who is not [X] or anything else beyond being [X], because others’ human experiences are so opaque, and yours to them.
fun fact: this is close to a complete list of countries I use to convince people that the US props up puppet states at the same time it chokes the life of socialist ones to promote a bullshit idea that Capitalism > Socialism
you missed Israel and Saudi Arabia (vs Iran) though.
People don't like feeling left out; like their thing is uncool or unpopular or below consideration.
So I think socialism would fare better in popular communication if people focused less on responding to and engaging with liberals, and more on intra-communist dialogue.
Nuance is a weapon, and we should notice when we are told that "socialism" should be a big indistinct blob, whereas we must adhere to an exacting taxonomy whenever we refer to liberals and conservatives and alt-right and fascists and so on.
Speaking as a newbie: whenever I saw communists dialogue in public, even in disagreement, it made communism seem vast and historical and inspired curiosity.
Whereas e.g. refusing to take sides on "China" for the sake of "unity" made it seem opportunistic and cobbled together.