this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
31 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
5232 readers
95 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Welcome again to everybody. Make yourself at home. In the time-honoured tradition of our group, here is the weekly discussion thread.
☭ Matrix homeserver and space
☭ Theory discussion group on /c/theory@lemmygrad.ml
☭ Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna's Archive
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
At this point I'm fairly convinced Platner was a psyop or something along those lines (not that I hold strongly to this opinion, since he isn't in my state and not worth the time to do much research and analysis).
My question is, what is an ML's place in this whole ordeal, or more generally when it comes to spectacularized electoralism? Speaking primarily of how we engage with (or sidestep) the discourse surrounding it, since obviously I don't think our finite energy should usually be spent actively participating in electoral politics.
I'm pretty unconvinced of the utility of the contrarian-leaning anti-electoralist stance in the discourse. It seems better at fostering a feeling of superiority towards libs than radicalizing them. Which is counterproductive to our usual understanding that electoralism's failures should be radicalizing events.
But a lot of people seemed to fall for the Platner thing. And I worry it risks shattering a lot of potential ideological pipelines. His problems seemed so obvious that it's hard not to outgroup anyone that defended him but at the same time I'm not sure that's productive. I dunno.
Overall I'm not satisfied with anti-electoralist discourse in general. It seems mostly reactive to and contained within manufactured discourse, unable to transcend it or really convince anyone of anything, in my experience. Personally I've moved more towards a passive optimism (in how I talk with libs, not internal beliefs), not shitting on people for feeling hopeful about Mamdani and the like, but trying to gently mention the limitations of elected individuals within capitalism. Doesn't really work for a (in my opinion) deliberate poison pill like Platner.
I think there are two essences within the pro-Platner left/libleft. One is an underlying imperial-colonial (sub)consciousness, where non-white people and people outside the imperial core are implicitly valued less. The other is an (in my opinion) unrefined and misdirected pragmatism that views him as a lesser evil and sees criticisms as attacks from the establishment. The former needs to be excised and eliminated without mercy. The latter is salvageable and needs to be engaged with, I think. Because when it comes down to it, revolutionaries very often have to utilize "evil" people, and we should be very careful giving up any advantages we can muster. There's a massive difference between tactically using them and investing time and energy into electing them into positions of power, of course.
And the two essences aren't distinct or discernible, so it's not like we can easily draw a line between people who supported a murdering rapist for "good" versus bad reasons.
To reiterate: I dunno. Every talking point pro or against gives me the feeling of getting played, getting trapped by the spectacle or manufactured discourse, rereading a scripted dialogue that's already been read a thousand times. But it's too late to just tell people to stop talking about it.
Basically, the ML take is "If you fell for this bullshit, don't fall for it again the next time."
It is meant to be a spectacle: Like a sport. Two teams. Lots of news about the ins and outs. Personalities and celebrity worship.
Any tiny wins or gains can be reversed by the next election until the system itself is thrown out.
I think Platner is awesome. It's like a thermobaric weapon went off in a private party & every compatible left figure came spilling out holding their guts into their torso, leaving us to ask "why are these people hanging out"
Oh you're looking to convince these people? Can't help, sorry. I only want to help Americans who are exactly like me
FWIW, and keeping in mind this is only my personal experience with transitioning from lib to ML, I distinctly remember someone online who helped move me further left after Bernie faceplanted and their MO went something like: Being gently understanding of why people are supporting Bernie, but also being plainly a communist and talking about communism in detail, trying to educate people further, explaining why they don't think Bernie is enough, etc.
I think there were some others I encountered who acted similarly to this too. In other words, there was no impression of condescension or superiority, but of being understanding of how someone would arrive at the position of supporting Bernie, while also being firmly not a soc dem.
The end result was that when Bernie failed, they were still there to pick up the pieces and explain what went wrong and why, with someone who was even more willing to listen to them now. In a way, I guess what I'm describing is what we talk about sometimes with regards to building relationships with people. These do not necessarily have to be close friendships. Even having a relationship of respect as acquaintances is worth something.
During an electoral campaign, true believers in the bougie electoral system can get swept up in the energy of the campaign and stave off doubt in order to push for a win. In the aftermath of a failed campaign, I think it is easier to get through to people, so long as they see you as someone who may be worth listening to.
Isn't this broadly Marx's original position on the organic spontaneous working class energy?
I.e. what you want and are fighting for is correct and just, but here are the limitations of doing it in the way you're trying to - you should do it this way instead because of x y z.
On the topic of electoralism, the ML position is simple: it is useful to engage tactically with electoralism, so long as it is done under the banner of an actual communist/socialist party. The real psyop is the DSA itself, as a pipeline into the Democratic party. The real psyop is "lesser evil-ism". As for Platner, i haven't really followed that situation because it was always deeply uninteresting and irrelevant in my opinion, but if the whole Nazi thing and having served as a murderer for hire for imperialism was not a deal breaker for the socdem/demsoc radlibs who supported him prior, why should this latest scandal be? That was far worse than him being a drunk rapist. The whole DSA project is fundamentally misconceived to begin with. The point of socialists engaging with electoralism is to build and expand the power base of their own independent party, not to attract votes to a neoliberal imperialist party. As it stands it's all just a different name for "Vote Democrat". Platner, Mamdani, all the same because the outcome is the same: leftists getting tricked into campaigning for Democrats. I thought the US left had learned their lesson after Bernie and the "Squad" betrayed them. Apparently not.
I don't disagree but my focus is a step outside the ML theory position, on the ML tactical or agitprop position. We know we think those things, but how are we choosing to engage or disengage with people who don't think those things or aren't advanced enough in their radicalization/education to understand or be receptive to those ideas? It seems the broad unorganized left (whatever we want to call it) still isn't inoculated against this kind of poison pill (I guess we'll better understand the degree to which once we can fully see the Platner fallout). But I don't think the ML left has enough cultural production/influence to take an explicitly hostile or exclusionary stance towards the broad unorganized left.
No, I'll word that differently. I don't know if the explicitly hostile or exclusionary stance serves us best. Or if that's even how it should be labeled/categorized.
Is an explicit schism between the people who fell for it and those that didn't useful for pipelining? Is pipelining even a real process that we should care about?
Another angle to it that I'm having a hard time putting into words. In game theory, there are often situations where a strategy is the correct one assuming all players are also playing to maximize value, but becomes worse if another player is playing poorly. So in a three player game, player 1 might play "optimally" and lose to player 3 because player 2's incorrect play changed the equilibrium.
Shitty way of trying to explain the concept but here the first-order optimum might be for us (player 1) to outright reject electoralists. But because so much of the unorganized left (player 2) swallowed the poison pill, the original strategy may no longer be optimal. If we continue to play without exploring the possibility of a second-order optimum, we risk handing a win to player 3 (bourgeoisie, fash, institutional dems, whatever). But it's possible the first one is still optimal. Again, this is how we publically engage with discourse, not about what we personally believe.
Trying to process that abstract nonsense into concrete particulars, say some co-worker is excited about Platner or watches Hasan or whatever is currently an outgroup signifier that I don't keep up with. Is the process to sidestep the issue because it's a psyop, to nip it in the bud and correct them, to develop a tactical response that hopefully leads towards self-radicalization? What about for somebody in a mutual aid group? A family member or friend? Someone in your political party? A media influencer?
The in-group/out-group lines are getting drawn on social media of course but I've really grown tired of them and how either disconnected or parasitic they can be towards real-life organizing. My impulse is to sidestep spectacle, but since I'm not the whole of the ML left nor the unorganized left, my personal impulse isn't necessarily what would work best if all ML's decided to do it.
I absolutely get the psyop theory, and have been leaning that way myself when I consider Platner. That said, I never considered him much because I'm also nowhere near Maine.
I would see posts about him where people are legitimately yearning for the reformist policies that would lesson the tension the workers of the imperial core are under, and I desperately want to grow that inkling of class consciousness. Unfortunately, it was obvious that these people are still too trapped in capitalism-as-default to seriously imagine a real alternative.
To me, American Exceptionalism (tm) is still the dominant narrative, even within the movement that is looking at Platner and Mamdani.
Unfortunately, I don't have a solid recommendation for how to actually address this with people beyond the tender prodding you've already illustrated. Mostly, I just wanted to reply to tell you that I definitely understand that feeling/though.
Stay strong.