Chapter 03 / Communism in the post-MAGA Age

MAGA Communism: The Record

Gigi writes, in relation to my infamous MAGA Communism video where I ‘pitch Communism’ to random MAGA people:

And then came the punchline: “So there’s a new idea called MAGA Communism…”

Most interviewees laughed and grew evasive. A few tried to find common ground: “I like the idea of common prosperity, but I’m a free market capitalist.”

Not that it’s all-so-important, but ‘most’ is carrying a lot. Anyone can just go watch the video themselves and see that the responses were overwhelmingly supportive, not ‘evasive’ or dismissive. This is a pure rhetorical sleight-of-hand: You represent the majority as ‘evasive’ anti-communist ideologists and present the one guy who responded by identifying as the ‘free market capitalist’ as the one attempting to find ‘common ground.’ In reality, the majority had already found common ground and were evidently ‘picking up’ what I was ‘putting down’ so to speak.

It’s surprising that this needs to be explained, but the point of this was not to somehow repudiate the necessity of actual Marxist pedagogy with respect to engaging the consciousness of the masses, nor even prove that MAGA people didn’t have anti-Communist prejudices. The point was to prove that it was possible to talk to MAGA people as a Communist. I was told on social media that merely using the word Communism at a MAGA rally would get me assaulted and provoke overwhelming hostility. I set out to prove that it wouldn’t, and it evidently and demonstrably didn’t.

The purpose of that video wasn’t to somehow provide a masterclass in bringing Communist ideas to MAGA people or to somehow claim that real Marxist education was unnecessary. The purpose was to show that some random Arab guy who openly calls himself a Communist, with minimal effort, can establish a basic foundation of dialogue so easily and begin the process of dialogue so easily, with such an overwhelmingly positive reception. I did this without the pretense of being any Communist Party leader. I did it as a random Arab guy who lives in Michigan. If I can do it so easily, then ostensibly committed, ‘organized’ professional revolutionaries have no excuse not to do it 100x more effectively than I did!

I was one random Arab guy who did something unprecedented. What would sustained contact between an organization and such MAGA masses have looked like? What are the possible outcomes of that encounter and dialogue? Isn’t the point that self-declared Communists in America, who for decades have repeated the same tired strategy of appealing to libtards who have no inherent rage against the system — should at least be a little curious about that question? Why was it so hard to believe that with sustained contact, and sustained dialogue, the same rage they have toward the system and ‘establishment’ could be articulated in Marxist terms? Maybe it’s because ‘leftists’ were materially incentivized precisely to ensure the failure of that strategy: It would open the movement to a bunch of ‘deplorables’ who would inevitably influence it at the expense of professional petty-bourgeois elements. It was and remains their class instinct to viciously gatekeep the movement from being affected by any truly mass element whatsoever.

Al-Din’s pitch notably lacked any reference to class struggle, internationalism, abolition of private property, or any other concept central to the communist worldview

I mean, it absolutely referenced every single aforementioned phrase — class struggle, internationalism, and the abolition of private property. It just did so concretely, rather than abstractly. Do you really mean to argue that referencing the unity of workers, small farmers, etc. against concrete representatives of the imperialist bourgeoisie isn’t a way of referencing class struggle?

That opposing NATO interventionism in Ukraine isn’t an example of internationalism? Ah, but concrete internationalism, rooted in concrete realities, and concrete, material interests.

That fundamentally challenging property relations, in the form of nationalizations (which I absolutely did mention in the video, I suppose it is a mere coincidence you left that part out?), expropriations, redistribution, etc. doesn’t partake in the Communist process of undermining the concrete authority of private property as a principle?

What you mean to say is that I did not present these terms as abstract signifiers of theoretical or academic knowledge. I did not test the ideological convictions of the interviewees — by testing their level of commitment to abolishing private property or promoting class struggle and internationalism in theory. Instead, I engaged with their consciousness in terms of what concrete avenues of development might possibly reflect the abolition of private property, class struggle, and internationalism in real practice.

Of course, I’m sure Gigi can remember that Peace, Land, and Bread as a slogan is, after all, devoid of any explicit reference to Marxist theory.

I expect that Gigi is unimpressed by the mundane fact that the majority of people really are inadvertently and accidentally becoming socialists in practice (and not on account of effecting any ideology into reality, but by simply giving way, by means of their practice, to unavoidable systemic contradictions) and concretely support the concretely revolutionary position consistently. Gigi must think,

“So what? When all is said and done, are they willing and ready to accept revolutionary terror? Do they accept the idea of expropriations, of abolishing this or that, violently destroying everything they’re familiar and comfortable with?”

It’s like somebody who talks about fighting, just to avoid really fighting. Someone who fantasizes about war, just to avoid the real war. Of course, the real material process of revolution has a way of opening the eyes of everyone. After all, it is well known that the worst excesses of Bolshevik terror weren’t led by intelligentsia, who for all their prior blustering were rather squeamish about the whole thing, but rough-hewn peasants!

The concrete, logical development of any given revolutionary process has a way of educating the masses in ways that no r-r-r-evolutionary theoretician or ideologist could possibly preempt, imagine, or anticipate. Don’t worry about people’s willingness to accept the abstract theory of class struggle and what it entails. Worry about how they respond to its concrete manifestations, manifestations which should likewise not be evaluated abstractly but concretely. After all, we are all really just hypocrites in theory, as I established above!

Gigi wants to preempt the development of revolutionary consciousness by imposing upon the proletarian masses the same standard of development as the guilty bourgeois intelligentsia. Of course the bourgeois intelligentsia must spend a great deal of time violently uprooting internal ideological prejudices, accepting without qualification the abolition of private property, internationalist solidarity, chipping away at their own bourgeois sentimentalism by accepting and embracing the historical violence of class struggle. This is doubly evident where the bourgeois intelligentsia have class guilt, or some other type of guilt: There and then it really and definitely needs to be proven, if only to themselves, that they are really and truly down for the cause and everything it inevitably entails.

To be clear, the overwhelming majority of proletarians are uninterested in abolishing their entire reality by way of theory. It is an indulgence of bourgeois intelligentsia to ‘abolish’ all that they know and are familiar with by way of theory or ideology alone. Only bourgeois idealists are disposed of the illusion that theory can abolish reality. They lack proletarian sensibility, and thus have no sense of reality beyond theory.

They abolish the idea of private property in their head and then think they know what abolishing it in reality actually is or looks like.

I do not want to contribute anything further to this guilt. Lenin himself made clear that regardless of the class origins of intelligentsia, they do not become socialists as workers:

[…] there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement [footnote:]; They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are able, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that knowledge

There is, of course, a basic cadre/class distinction inherent in Leninism. In anticipation of the ‘accusation’ that this means workers must confine themselves to ‘literature for workers’ and cannot advance their consciousness as socialist theoreticians, I will simply once again allow Lenin to continue:

But in order that working men may succeed in this more often, every effort must be made to raise the level of the consciousness of the workers in general; it is necessary that the workers do not confine themselves to the artificially restricted limits of “literature for workers” but that they learn to an increasing degree to master general literature. It would be even truer to say “are not confined”, instead of “do not confine themselves”, because the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia, and only a few (bad) intellectuals believe that it is enough “for workers” to be told a few things about factory conditions and to have repeated to them over and over again what has long been known

I do not think I could be reasonably accused of having ‘confined’ MAGA proletarians to a specific level of theoretical development, by attempting to differently introduce them to Communist ideas. The point is that the conditions of introducing bourgeois intelligentsia (full of self-hatred, guilt, etc. and a general desire to be relatable, fit in with the masses) to Communist ideas are distinct from introducing the proletarian masses, embedded in the concrete rather than theoretical development of reality, to them.

Taking its place is right-wing conspiracy culture.

No, taking its place are references to spontaneous yet correct proletarian instincts and sensibilities about reality which are monopolized by right-wing ideologists, because all the ‘Marxists’ have their heads up their ass!

Even so, rallygoers balked at the word “Communism.”

But anyone can just watch the video and see this isn’t true. You know that, right?

Al-Din told rallygoers that MAGA Communism was “an internet trend,” a meme, not to be taken too seriously. MAGA Communists, meanwhile, promoted this video as “proof that MAGA is ready for Communism”

I suppose that if something is a trend on the internet, it should not be taken seriously. That is your own conclusion, nowhere implied by me. There’s no contradiction here: That something is an internet trend doesn’t mean it’s a joke. If that’s true, then you are yourself a joke too, because you don’t really have any significance offline yourself and neither do any self proclaimed Communists in this country.

The party launched to considerable online virality and controversy, but failed to distinguish itself in practice from the dozens of already existing communist micro-parties.

Except, of course, in all the ways we really and actually, demonstrably have.

It immediately stagnated — it held no conventions of substance [c], ran no candidates, organized no workplaces, led no tenant fights. Its primary output remained the same as the organizations that formed it: content. The “party” functioned as little more than a PR machine for this influencer network.

Our Party has only been around for two years, and with zero external resources, we have pioneered the organization of drayage truckers and participated in numerous instances of labor and tenant organizing. We chose to provide assistance to those already leading, rather than ‘lead’ the latter where we have no actual experience. Isn’t a basic condition of being able to play a leading role in labor and tenant organizing the invaluable acquisition of basic training and experience from those who have been doing it for decades (the majority of whom are not Communists)?

You claim our primary output is ‘content,’ but what is the ‘content’ of that ‘content’ if not empirical proof we are in fact organizing offline? What possible means are at our disposal, aside from using the internet, from proving this to you? Unless you attend Party events yourself? It’s such an abjectly ridiculous line of ‘criticism:’ You can only see us online, therefore, we only exist there. You can only see a war on TV, therefore, only the TV is real? What profound solipsism.

How does the Party function as a PR machine for our ‘influencer network?’ Isn’t the reverse more logical? I mean, just think about it for 5 minutes, I implore you. What does Jackson Hinkle actually gain by way of his influencer career from the American Communist Party? Imagine if he simply decided to sell out to the Republican or Democratic Parties. Or, imagine he simply decided to do what he already was, just without the Party. In what way is the Party a PR machine for him? On the contrary, Jackson has used what he himself and himself alone built, to aid in giving our Party exposure.

Jackson and I have been practically brothers years before the Party. I certainly did not need the American Communist Party to have Jackson’s support. Midwestern Marx would have gained far more by attacking both Jackson and I and would have been propped up and rewarded both with popularity and money for doing so. This has always been a stupid line of attack, and I’m genuinely disappointed that you discredit yourself with it, Gigi.

Regarding our stagnation, by what metric exactly? We have roughly the same amount of actual, active members that other self-proclaimed Communist organizations do, despite existing for a very small fraction of time in comparison to them.