EDIT: i now see the glaring problem with this thread- it assumes proletarians (white ones especially) are mostly reactionary and won't advocate for their own class interests. further, he only addresses two types of americans, the radlib and the white reactionary. this thread is almost entirely unhelpful to people on this site who are in neither category and consistently fight back against libs and reactionaries alike.
also the term "synthetic left" was coined by calep maupin, a patsoc and genuinely revolting person
a better tweet than this would have been "radlibs appropriate the struggles of marginalized people to distract from the struggle of the working class, but the material conditions of the working class are affected by structures like racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. 1/2" "Therefore a mass communist movement must focus on improving the material conditions of the lower classes, but especially to those most oppressed under capitalism"
this was quite the struggle session
Thank you to everyone who shared their input, you guys are the best :soviet-heart: communism will win, love you all
PS read some Mao
Right, but we shouldn't be reaching out to working-class Trump supporters as Trump supporters, we should be reaching out to them as workers. I do think he has a point, but this train of thought can also easily lead to class reductionism and Haz-style tailism.
Ok, I can see how one can read this line as "the synthetic left believes working-class conservatives are a greater threat than the actual bourgeoisie," which I think is how you're reading it. But yes, to the extent that a working class chud has the tendency to be racist, homophobic, transphobic, they should be opposed since that represents a threat to a unified working class movement. I agree that Trump supporters should be courted by the left, but this guy seems to want to do that to the detriment of "culture" issues. However, queer, trans, Black and brown workers, or any others more likely to be liberal, are just as working-class as a conservative worker. To ignore "culture" issues doesn't mean they don't exist, and as long as they do exist the bourgeois will have us fighting amongst ourselves so that we don't see the boot on our necks.
I think we agree more than we disagree, because as I say I do think this guy has a point, and we do need to talk to people where they're at. But this doesn't mean throwing our queer and trans comrades under the bus and ignoring what many, including this guy, write off as "culture" issues
i agree, we should never abandon our marginalized comrades. the problem isn't the cultural issues themselves, but the reluctance of western leftists to reach out to working class conservatives because of their views on cultural issues. yes there are plenty of liberals and marginalized workers who are probably more easily converted, but treating working class conservatives as the primary enemy instead of potential allies who just need education is harmful.
the difference between this line of thinking and patsoc, red-brown alliance grifters like Haz is that they coopt racism, homophobia, and transphobia to appeal to white, cishet workers, while xiangyu is simply pointing out a lot of "leftists" are labeling these confused proles as the enemy. the lumpenproletariat has a lot of problems and we shouldnt cater to their reactionary views, but we shouldn't alienate them from the movement by being actively hostile to them. there is a middle ground of dialoguing with reactionary workers on political economy while not ceding to their views that fracture the working class.
educate, agitate, and organize is the goal. part of this education can be on cultural struggles, but the primary struggle is class. thats not class reductionist, its just reality
From my perspective its not that class is the primary struggle separate from "culture" issues, but that class is intertwined with these other issues. Where class reductionists get it wrong is that we can ignore these issues and still build a unified working class movement, but there are also those who aren't necessarily class reductionists, but still separate race and gender from class, treating race and gender as important, but not the focus.
The goal is to build a unified working class movement, and we're not going to do that by allowing divisions to persist by accommodating the reactionary elements of the working class. To ignore these reactionary elements is to introduce and allow divisions in the movement that threaten to tear it apart. While we are focused on class, to focus on class means also to focus on these other "culture" issues.
And I think part of the reason working class conservatives can be viewed as the enemy is because, when we're talking about violence against our comrades, a lot of it is carried out by them. Sure, with the right amount of education and discussion they can be won over, but while they're not won over they are potentially very dangerous to us and our comrades. Libs are fucking insufferable, but I don't expect a run of the mill liberal to shoot me for being a communist, they'd probably just send me a bunch of china bad nyt articles. Chuds have the potential of becoming violent.
Fucking fire.
:Care-Comrade: thanks comrade I was really proud of that one