I honestly don’t think there’s ever going to be a coherent mass socialist movement in the U.S
Well dispite that being a likely case ,communists in america have no choice but to act in the exact same way they would if it was possible or not act at all.
I just tend to roll my eyes at this weird messianic streak I see in a lot of american leftists who put ideology ahead of material conditions, thinking that if only everyone thought as I do, we could save the world.
One read of this is that in some online argument between leftists putting "material conditions ahead" means basicaly nothing . What is it ,how are you supposed to literally do that online ? Its not part of organizing and acting in real life so by definition whatever you chose to talk or argue about it isnt putting material conditions ahead or behind. So is not arguing at all or not posting "putting material conditions first"?
Another read is that to a degree "if only everyone thought as I do, we could save the world" IS what socialists, anarchists and communists believe and act from since forever. In the sense of "We have to do everything we can to eventualy have the working class embracing and marching along Marxist-Leninist/ Anarchist/ Syndicalist ideological lines in order to transform the world and achieve our goals".
So when a marxist lenninist lets say agitates and argues against social democracy on various levels, offline or online, they are putting material conditions first in their view since they of course believe that the left will have the best chances of success in eventualy changing the material conditions of the working class if it follows and adopts leninist tactics, theory and positions. So fighting for that position to be more dominant in the discourse and dissuading as many leftists as they can from the wrong position if they see it stated IS both ideological of course and "putting material conditions first".
What behaviors and positions you or some other leftists considers "not putting material conditions first" is too highly ideological. A leftist saying "we should go for as much left unity as possible including socdems" , "now its not the time for this" or "we shouldnt argue online at all it doesnt matter and is just aesthetics" or "arguing online over social democrats being allies or not is being an ideologue and not putting material conditions first" is basing it on their ideological beliefs on how the left "should act" or what is or isnt a waste of time
Friend that's a lot of words defending reddit arguments, and I really don't have the emotional bandwidth right now to digest all of it. My take on posting is that we're all hopeless wretches addicted to monetized reaction machines and that we should burn web 3.0 to the ground and salt the earth. But if you think getting into doctrinal social media fights is worth your time, then by all means, genuinely, you do you.
"getting into reddit posting fights is a waste of time" is hard to argue against
But come on, you basicaly used that springboard to rant about how any leftist strongly holding an obvious and relevant for most communists worldwide and historicaly position like the one OP mentioned ("social democracy sucks and socdems arent to be allied with") and arguing for it anywhere rn in America (including when you see some releveant discussion online) is some counterproductive heavily ideological messianic pathology that puts material conditions second
I think what's getting lost in translation here is I'm making critiques of individuals, not organizations. I want and expect left orgs like DSA and PSL to have an explicitly anti-imperialist position and announce so to the world.
But individual actors arguing with each other online, especially on reddit, is just jacking off in the wind. It's a demonstration of loyalty to your chosen ideological tribe, which on an individual level is about as meaningful as arguing over whether xbox is better than playstation
Well dispite that being a likely case ,communists in america have no choice but to act in the exact same way they would if it was possible or not act at all.
One read of this is that in some online argument between leftists putting "material conditions ahead" means basicaly nothing . What is it ,how are you supposed to literally do that online ? Its not part of organizing and acting in real life so by definition whatever you chose to talk or argue about it isnt putting material conditions ahead or behind. So is not arguing at all or not posting "putting material conditions first"?
Another read is that to a degree "if only everyone thought as I do, we could save the world" IS what socialists, anarchists and communists believe and act from since forever. In the sense of "We have to do everything we can to eventualy have the working class embracing and marching along Marxist-Leninist/ Anarchist/ Syndicalist ideological lines in order to transform the world and achieve our goals".
So when a marxist lenninist lets say agitates and argues against social democracy on various levels, offline or online, they are putting material conditions first in their view since they of course believe that the left will have the best chances of success in eventualy changing the material conditions of the working class if it follows and adopts leninist tactics, theory and positions. So fighting for that position to be more dominant in the discourse and dissuading as many leftists as they can from the wrong position if they see it stated IS both ideological of course and "putting material conditions first".
What behaviors and positions you or some other leftists considers "not putting material conditions first" is too highly ideological. A leftist saying "we should go for as much left unity as possible including socdems" , "now its not the time for this" or "we shouldnt argue online at all it doesnt matter and is just aesthetics" or "arguing online over social democrats being allies or not is being an ideologue and not putting material conditions first" is basing it on their ideological beliefs on how the left "should act" or what is or isnt a waste of time
Friend that's a lot of words defending reddit arguments, and I really don't have the emotional bandwidth right now to digest all of it. My take on posting is that we're all hopeless wretches addicted to monetized reaction machines and that we should burn web 3.0 to the ground and salt the earth. But if you think getting into doctrinal social media fights is worth your time, then by all means, genuinely, you do you.
"getting into reddit posting fights is a waste of time" is hard to argue against
But come on, you basicaly used that springboard to rant about how any leftist strongly holding an obvious and relevant for most communists worldwide and historicaly position like the one OP mentioned ("social democracy sucks and socdems arent to be allied with") and arguing for it anywhere rn in America (including when you see some releveant discussion online) is some counterproductive heavily ideological messianic pathology that puts material conditions second
I think what's getting lost in translation here is I'm making critiques of individuals, not organizations. I want and expect left orgs like DSA and PSL to have an explicitly anti-imperialist position and announce so to the world.
But individual actors arguing with each other online, especially on reddit, is just jacking off in the wind. It's a demonstration of loyalty to your chosen ideological tribe, which on an individual level is about as meaningful as arguing over whether xbox is better than playstation