The bulk of negative responses against #MAGACommunism comes from idealist conceptions of the working class or movements that the Communists should be engaging with. It is a knee-jerk reaction that comes from the contradiction between the "pure" when faced with the real. 🧵
It also comes from another misconception of MAGA, which is itself a mixed composition between proles and petit bourgeois, those critical of the Republicans and those who strictly follow the line, those who are critical of the American system and those who seek its salvation.
Many American leftists and communists deem it more valuable to connect with those who already "think" and "talk" like them - the more "progressive," typically urbanite elements like Democrat voters, Starbucks Union organizers, self proclaimed socialists, and others.
These sections of the people match closest to the Ideal of leftists, but comes with the drawback of miscalculating how truly popular these elements are, how they relate to the broad working class and if the functions of their movements strengthens or weakens the establishment.
And too often these leftists get into the organizing game with the preconceived notions of what the working class *wants* before it ever engages with them on the ground. We see this in the abortion struggle, the controversies of the vaccine mandates, environmentalism, etc.
The issue of American communism is the issue of idealism in practice and moralism in analysis, even when they'll swear that what they're doing is genuine Marxism. We think that embedding ourselves within the "progressives" will have us flourish, but the reality shows otherwise.
Organizations like DSA, CPUSA, and PSL have high membership rates but are so riddled with radical liberals who are resistant to engaging with those who exist outside their ideological bubbles that none of them have any real relevance among the broad American working class.
Nobody outside of leftist college students or activists read Jacobin, People's World, or Liberation News for guidance, not just strictly bc of the difficulties of independent media but bc of the lacking resonance of what these papers offer and what the working class wants.
The folly of these organizations reveal the strengths of the MAGA movement - its populism, ruggedness, resonance with chiefly American conditions and concerns, charisma, and embrace of those disillusioned elements critical of both the establishment and the deceptions of leftism.
The problem facing us is idealism. Marx reminds us that Communism is the *real* movement of people against the actually existing order, not something mechanically imposed or something that needs to conform to our criteria. Our fate is irrelevance if we continue the idealist path.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The nostalgia of a past America is a response to the hollowed present. No one today can live the same lives or have the same opportunities as our parents or grandparents. The reason people subscribe to MAGA is that they *want* that back for the people of today. This is essence.
The pessimism blinds you from the history of American achievement - not just the revolution, abolition, union struggles, and civil rights, but once being the production center of the world, innovators in music and movies, and other positive and distinctly American features.
If you're a Marxist then you know there's a unity of opposites, that within progress there's regression and that there's a class basis for all things. But it's an idealist error to only see the one-sided negative instead of the balance of both the positive and negative.
Lenin demanded the Bolsheviks to bond with the peasants in the countryside, who were extremely conservative, devoutly religious. Mao issued the same order for the peasants in the countryside.
And yet you wince at the thought of doing the same thing for the people in MAGA.
If I recall in the History of the CPUSA by Foster, he noted that Garvey's Back to Africa movement was a similar, if not more extreme brand of a popular conservative wave which appealed to the needs of Black Americans but had a backwards political orientation...
And Foster wrote he was regretful for not putting any focus in the Back to Africa Movement at the time, because even though much of Garvey's ideals were at odds with Communism, the essence, the people in it were evidence of a politically conscious section that can be activated.
This is the most idpol thing I've ever heard. Apparently seeking any form of unity or engagement with the "right wing" (which was never defined in the video) means that you're throwing Black people under the bus. How? This uses Black people as a prop.
And speaking of irrelevancy, since 2020 what have the "major" left parties been doing? Where are they? Because since 2021 all the major anti-establishment movements in the USA and Canada have been composed primarily of conservatives.
It is the conservative sections that have been calling out US's role in Ukraine and China, the policies of the Biden admin that restrict our political rights, the abuses of state power, and the role of mainstream media. The "left" has been doing the opposite.
We're slowly coming back to "imperialism benefits workers" discourse so here's 10 points:
1. What is considered poverty and the prices of commodities are respective to the overall development of a country in question. Having a measuring stick of who has it worse does nothing.
2. Commodities must be cheap enough in price to both guarantee profit and to be consumed in the first place. The wage and price of commodities must be enough to guarantee what the ruling class considers to be basic subsistence to keep someone alive enough for work.
3. Workers everywhere only ever see the price tag or the commodity itself. They don't see the labor behind it, they don't care how it got there, only that their stores are stocked and there's a roof over their heads. Finger wagging about ethical consumption is stupid.
The essence of prole. patriotism the contrarians don't understand is its use to help motivate *towards* the goal of socialism. It's not self indulgent reveling in aesthetics, not a fetish of the past. It's a framework for policy and a personal virtue to keep you moving forward.
For policy you consistently ask the questions "what is it the people need right now?" "How is the establishment denying the people's needs and hurting their interests? What is a practical program which meets current needs? How can we rally people to the cause?"
For personal virtue it's a question of duty, community, honor, responsibility and accountability to the people and your home. It's values that have been lost for so long that its reacquaintance is like a breath of fresh air.