https://twitter.com/pollpottt/status/1737950380820955561
Im defently active there and its awful. I talk about it a lot but most of the people there are MLM or (worse imo, the MLMs there are decently reasonable) leftcoms with awful takes on geopol and aes. (And thats letting aside the anarchists, who are worse on everything except social and cultural issues). There are some decent MLs there but its like needle in a haystack.
And its also like dodging landmines, because when you see good geopol takes in the replies, DO NOT TRUST, theres like an 80% chance theyre a social reactionairy, probably a Hazite, and their support for Russia is probably not critical lol.
Its awful.
It does seem like a self-selecting process. My first thought here was "ew, why would anyone waste time arguing politics on twitter?" And I don't have a twitter account, so I'm not throwing my hat into that ring.
Thats part of it. But in think also a lot of socially progressive communists are driven to Ultraism out of a desire to be as far away from the Hazites possible whilest remaining technically communisfs because the Hazites are so cringe and uncool, lol.
The Maoists long predate the Hazites though. "Patsocs" as a movement haven't been around for very long at all, but there's a long tradition of western leftists adopting idealistic ultra tendencies. I think both groups do have a lot in common. Anyone so terminally online that they think twitter arguments are a good use of their time is probably pretty out of touch with reality and so prefers idealistic solutions to problems.
Yeah i didnt mean to say Maoism came from a reaction to patsocs obv. I dont think the New Peoples Army is very concerned with Infared lol
I meant that socially progressive communists on twitter are driven to MLM and leftcom to avoid being like them
And im half convinced that the leading patsocs are a psyop to make antimperialism look inherently socially reactionairy.
I'd say both twitter patsocs and twitter maoists are psyops designed to funnel people away from actually understanding leftist theory. Both groups fundmentally and wilfully misinterpret socialist ideas to push their own personal ideas, which emphasise adventurism and very rigid adherence to a philosophical position. Neither group are truly a threat to capital and waste their time arguing on the internet instead of organising.
Though Patsocs are 100% an op, I just suspect twitter maoists are one, I don't have any proof.
Twitter maoists dont seem to have any way out in front leader that would seem like an op to me like Hinkle and Haz are which is my main hesitation with that. To me it seems organic but i do agree their ideology presents no threat to capitalism
Some of them are quiet nice and reasonable though at least.
I was so much happier once I told some republican I was gonna cannibalize his kids to get banned on purpose tbh
well, once i stopped trying to argue with people on other sites after that
Yeah, I really should just learn to respond with a funny gif or emote or something instead of engaging. Would save me a lot of time and energy.
Unrelated, but you know what?
If I will make a communist country, I'll simply have a major Dengist and a major Maoist party rule instead of one, but more unified in the vein of Democrats and Republicans of the U.S.A on key issues,
Just to take the piss out of the 2 party system of U.S and the rest of the western world, because 1 party rule = dictatorship according to them...
Note: I do know such factionalism and division historically isn't successful
(Eg. People's Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, China from 1949-1978)
Sometimes I wonder if successful socialism in the West would be implemented by perpetuating deceitful liberal tactics like party duopoly with spectacle elections.
Like, exile in Siberia was used as a punishment for centuries in Tsarist Russia, so when the Soviet Union was built they kept using it with some improvements because a new society doesn't simply spawn out of thin air with a complete revamp of everything. So could fraudulently free media and useless elections be the "gulag of the West" in a sense?
I feel like you're criticizing me a bit (i don't remember talking about spectacle elections) , but if you're saying this unironically, I agree as I believe these all have a kernel of truth in here after all... like Marx said
"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it."
It's not just about political governance but about detournement of potential counter-revolutionary energy to revolutionary one as such, while simultaneously mocking the western 2-party system that has dominated the areas...
The united states founding fathers initially didn't want a 2 party system. They just so happened to get 2 parties because of their economic interests. The difference was between northern industrialists and southern slaveholders.
The USSR created a one party system but understood it had 2 main interests of workers that they needed to contend with: The agricultural workers and industrial workers. Their interests were represented by the hammer for the factory workers and the sickle to represent the farm workers. They managed to have a 1 party rule for a while.
I was thinking it would be funny to have an anarcho-syndiclist party and a Marxist Lenninist party. One party that wants to keep on pushing the communism button whereever it is possible to implement locally and the Marxist Lenninist party that implements things in stages with scalable solutions. Reactionaries will find it difficult to manipulate either party towards reactionary ends, and the other party can hold the other in check if it becomes infested with reactionaries. Then again it seems silly to presume to build that from the get go. We should only do that if the anarchists can be convincing enough to alot of people. We can't make history as we imagine it entirely. We may have to make concessions, but that depends on how this all plays out.
Suppose They Gave a Corporate Social Media Platform and Nobody Came
