Chapter 07 / Communism in the post-MAGA Age

Partisanship in Culture, Cowardice in Politics

There, they are offered a sanitized version of anti-imperialism and social-democratic economics, stripped of any demands that might disturb their prejudices.

This is a baffling accusation, given that your own tendency is comprised of people who regard Democrats and Zohran Mamdani as “progressivism.” Your hollow radicalism appears to become “decisive” only where it concerns cultural issues. When the ridiculous, professional petty-bourgeois tendencies of ‘progressive culture’ are called into question, even at the minimal level of questioning to what extent they deserve priority, suddenly the Democrat becomes a Maoist, talking about ‘sanitized anti-imperialism’ and ‘social-democratic’ economics.

As a Zohran supporter, do you have no self-awareness?

Each generation of American socialists has produced a faction convinced that the struggle against oppression is a distraction from the “real” class struggle, and each is paralyzed the moment the bourgeoisie deploys the divisions it declines to confront.

By this you mean to reference the national question, which Leninism established clearly as relating to the very form of class struggle itself. Of course, the racial unity of the working class had always been an indispensable condition of waging successful proletarian class politics in America, but does that mean the proletariat is ‘paralyzed’ when it fails to adopt a unanimous position on meticulous, minuscule issues pertaining to people’s private sexual practices, bathrooms, etc.? The comparison between such ‘issues’ and the national question is a mockery of Leninism, confusing private, personal ‘identities’ with the material laws according to which material, integral unities of labor, i.e. societies, form objectively. Nations are integral forms of accumulated history and the real form of collective existence within a given society. They are fundamentally incomparable to private sexual habits.

MAGA Communists did not correct the error; they reflected it. Where the post-Marxist left collapsed class into the various subcultures of urban professionals, the MAGA Communists collapsed class into a mythical monoculture of the white rural worker.

This claim about our treatment of the racial background of the working class is a mere statistical consequence of the fact that white people still make up a majority of Americans, especially rural Americans. There is nothing mythical about this fact.

But this mythical worker is himself an invention of the urban professional — a stereotype inherited from the traditional media ecosystem that the MAGA Communists claim to reject. Both are essentially factional politics — seeking to organize a sliver of the class. Both tendencies sever what Communism insists must be joined: the organized, independent political power of the whole working class and the struggle against every form of exploitation that divides it.

This notion of MAGA Communists referencing a ‘mythical’ worker and being blind to the nuances and subtleties of the cultures which predominate among the working class is itself a myth. Go to any actual ACP event. Go see what our people look like, dress like, sound like, and talk like. Please actually find an example of this “stereotype” and “mythical” projection, besides that one AI-generated image one of our followers shared on Twitter of a traditional family juxtaposed to Communist symbols which ‘leftists’ shid their pants and cried over.

It reads like an Introduction to Film Analysis essay written by an undergraduate student: Collapsing all definite claims into ‘tropes’ and ‘cliches’ which should be ‘dismantled,’ denying every simple signifier of unity in favor of infinite complexity and multiplicity. This sounds intelligent to mediocre tenured, semi-suicidal college professors but not real Marxists. There is a clear and obvious division between the real American working class and the professional petty-bourgeoisie. There is even an obvious divide between socialist intelligentsia and the working class. While that divide cannot be eliminated, the failure to acknowledge it has led to a denial of the working class’s existence itself.

The MAGA Communist solution to win over the whole working class is to set aside, or, in some cases, even intentionally reinforce reactionary positions around cultural and social questions

What makes said positions “reactionary” or their observe “progressive” in clear, materialist, Marxist terms? This prejudice regarding the ‘progressive’ nature of experimental subcultures, marginal private sexual habits, and alternative lifestyles, etc. is a consequence of the uniquely neoliberal, end-of-history comprehension of “progress” institutionalized under both Clinton and Obama administrations, where every surrender by the imperialist bourgeoisie with respect to the contradictions within civilization engendered by its rule was mistaken for ‘progress.’ According to this view, “progress” is measured by the proliferation of infinitesimally more choices, lifestyles, habits, lifestyles, etc. at the expense of norms and habits established by social convention. There is nothing in Marxism which regards the private habits or this or that individual as innately progressive or reactionary, even if these habits are given the veneer of a ‘movement.’

In some sense, the rise, for example, of the LGBT ‘movement’ once provoked an existential crisis within bourgeois culture. The original (evangelical, etc.) reaction to it exposed the internal hypocrisy, corruption, etc. of so-called “traditional” bourgeois cultural norms. Much in the same way that the bourgeois ‘conservative’ reaction to prostitution revealed the inherent hypocrisy and corruption of bourgeois civilization. But the falseness, hypocrisy, and corruption of bourgeois culture does not lie in any reality of norms, conventions, traditional values, etc. — but in the fact that their bourgeois foundations nakedly contradict them, alongside any semblance of normal, organic social existence among the masses. Lenin’s rage toward the hypocrisy of the philistine bourgeoisie did not lie in the general form of ‘conservative values’ as ‘oppressive,’ as much as the real content of those values, a social existence in every respect defined and shaped by capital, which engenders the inevitability of their debasement.

Never in history have genuine Communists welcomed, encouraged, or cheered on the social confusion, disarray, and anarchy wrought by capitalism as ‘progressive.’ They have consistently rejected the bourgeois, ‘conservative’ reaction to this turmoil as false, hypocritical, and even outrageous not because they regard the thing itself as ‘progressive’ but precisely because such a reaction distorts their true causes. The consistent Communist position has always been that the establishment of genuine social harmony and convention — a normal, human society (which, yes, Engels in the Origin very much regarded as corresponding to communism) — can be possible only on the basis of overcoming class antagonisms and relations of production defined by the exploitation of man over man. That human beings innately aspire toward social-cultural harmony, socially harmonious conventions, norms, etc. has always been taken for granted by past Communists — the problem always lied in the obfuscation of the causes of the general dysfunction and decay of civilization by bourgeois philistines.

But following the so-called ‘counter-culture,’ the imperialist bourgeoisie surrendered entirely to its adversary, the socio-cultural dysfunction engendered by the class relations which predicate its own existence. From that point up until today (and yes, even the new, Silicon Valley-led Republican Party has, in its own way, given this its own twist), the imperialist bourgeoisie has abandoned any pretense of ‘protecting’ any social-cultural harmony. It is of course deeply mistaken to regard this white flag (white, which like the rainbow flag contains all colors) of ‘surrender’ by the imperialist bourgeoisie as ‘progressive.’ I will not here claim to prescribe specific norms, cultural relationships, etc. positively upon a nation that so clearly and evidently has failed to maintain any concretely and definitively; I am not making any specific claim about any given range of private lifestyles, alternative or otherwise. Yet the problem with alternative cultural ‘movements’ is not so much the specific content of ‘marginalised’ groups as much as the fact that these ‘movements’ are defined entirely on the basis of the breakdown, repudiation, and even ‘dismantlement’ of norms. They only reify the cultural breakdown and dysfunction of bourgeois ‘civilization.’

Since Gigi is so interested in questions of culture, they should be reminded (if they have an iota of familiarity with historical Communist views on such questions) the truly progressive thing lies not in the overthrow of cultural norms but in the establishment of cultural norms which correctly reflect, articulate, etc. and in part reproduce the material causes that engender them. The diverse cultures of mankind, for several millennia predating modern capitalism, are innately, profoundly, and functionally dialectical. They reflect a subtle, functional, practical awareness of the various material ‘contradictions’ which cultural form only gives expression to. This innate, practical awareness, evident in the internal logic of culture, does not accept the breakdown of norms; rather, norms are replenished by reflecting, articulating, and continuously giving expression to the contradictions propelling the movement of their material causes. This is quite distinct from the ‘strawman’ bourgeois cultural liberals impose upon all the traditional cultures of the world: That they one-sidedly prescribe norms arbitrarily, as formally definite practices which are emulated on the basis of strict obedience to authority — and which thus fail to account for the diversity, complexity, and nuance of human expression.

On the contrary, it is bourgeois ‘culture’ in all its manifestations — ‘conservative,’ liberal — from the 19th century nuclear family predicated upon marriage as institutionalized prostitution to the openly ‘pro-sex worker’ and ‘LGBT friendly’ orientation of today’s imperialist bourgeoisie — which attempts to reduce culture to something functionally misaligned with their real material causes. Namely, the whims and fancies of individual consciousness, the vain purport of institutions, etc. — from the reduction of the relations between the sexes to strictly enumerated contractual relationships based on money, to the notion that mere individual whim can somehow annihilate the accumulated wisdom and logic inherent in fundamentally social relationships (and the denial of the latter as ‘liberation’ and ‘freedom’). I do not simply, here, reproduce something like the ‘materialist’ criticism of ‘gender politics’ by appealing to biology: I refer to the material weight not of biology but of the autonomous logic of social existence itself, which, from the perspective of cosmic hierarchy (of what is truly and more fundamentally material), is more fundamental than biology (as Lysenko comprehended indirectly).

Additionally, the notion that explicit ‘tribute’ has to be made toward ‘communities’ centered around alternative lifestyles could not possibly hold with any degree of consistency. Where does it begin or end, and why? We are told that it is necessary, for the sake of the unity of the working class, to pay tribute to all specific identities and lifestyles, including furries. There are plenty of habits and behaviors exhibited by individual members of the working class which everyone would regard ubiquitously as socially harmful, and even criminal. But since they are performed by people who happen to be proletarians, do their habits and lifestyles qualify as indispensably deserving of tribute for the sake of ‘working class unity?’ This is a frankly ridiculous, methodologically individualistic notion of what actually constitutes a class as a class in the first place, for classes are not simply aggregates of individual personalities but objective tendencies within the objective process within which the division of labor is continually reproduced.

in order to build unity around social-democratic economics combined with rhetorical anti-imperialism (rhetorical in the sense that it often lends itself more to right-populist isolationism than any anti-war effort).

Social-democratic economics, combined with rhetorical anti-imperialism. As opposed to the strictly Communistic economies and concrete anti-imperialism of Zohran Mamdani and other “progressives,” correct? Do the partisans of Geese Magazine directly preach the gospel of “full communism now” to ‘progressives,’ and what have been the practical consequences of this evangelizing? What is the content of real ‘anti-war’ effort, as opposed to merely “rhetorical” anti-imperialism?

Voting for Democrats, who bomb and kill children with missiles that have pride flags on them? Just what are we talking about here? So we have a point of reference — to compare the meager ‘social-democratic’ economics of ACP — which includes references to transitioning into a post-capitalist, planned economy, alongside the nationalization of all major industries, land, resource wealth and finances, to the genuine Communist economics of communists. Additionally, a challenge: Show us a single, modern social-democratic program that bares any resemblance to ours whatsoever, that justifies the accusation of ‘social-democratic’ economics.

This is just selective, Right-opportunist employment of ultraleft language that is not even formally principled. You throw bones at ‘left-communists’ and ‘Maoists’ to give your attachment to bourgeois cultural ‘politics’ a falsely radical veneer. Lacking any real substantive, radical Left-Wing essence, you must overcompensate for the milquetoast, bourgeois, neoliberal attachment to identity politics — with sweeping indictments of our views as ‘social-democratic’ and merely ‘rhetorically anti-imperialist.’

When one speaks of “right-populist isolationism” as opposed to the supposedly “real anti-war effort,” one does not speak of anything that actually exists concretely. One speaks of contrasting ideologies and forms of consciousness — reducing concrete manifestations of domestic opposition to imperialism to the constraints of a merely limited ideology (“right-populist isolationism”) — as opposed to the unconstrained, boundless, yet, for whatever reason, absolutely irrelevant and immaterial “anti-war” effort, which is neither real nor any real effort. Give me a single example of “leftists” having any influence whatsoever on effecting anti-war outcomes in the past 10 years. Just one.

I can name plenty of examples of, say, Tucker Carlson exerting pressure on the basis of opposing foreign interventions! But this is ‘right-populist isolationism,’ and not the ‘REAL’ anti-war effort, which really only exists in your head and not anywhere concretely.

“Peace, Land, and Bread” — this just lends itself to Right-Wing, bourgeois peasant aspirations. As opposed to a real revolutionary slogan: “Abolish the Commodity Form and All Existing Relations of Production premised on the alienation of the worker from their own labor and the private property.”

But of course, who am I arguing with? Do you dismiss Zohran Mamdani as a ‘social-democrat’ or ‘performative anti-imperialist,’ despite the fact that this is actually what he is?

Rather than contesting bourgeois cultural hegemony — rather than fighting for a working-class culture of solidarity, internationalism, and democratic self-determination—they instruct the working class to defer cultural questions to whatever dominant formation the worker already inhabits. For the MAGA worker, this means deference to MAGA culture.

This is just a woefully out of touch claim. If you insist on the cultivation of a proletarian-led culture war, you must accept that it will probably not conform to the cultural sensibilities of the bourgeois intelligentsia. I’m sorry, but no. Graduate students and academics will be off-put by it, and definitely label it as fascist.

For all their posturing as hard-nosed realists against liberal sentimentality, the MAGA Communists’ approach to the divided working class is the most naive, kumbaya, utopian position on offer.

Because when we really do effectively wage proletarian culture war, “leftists” deliver all the fruits of all our successes to degenerates that openly call themselves fascists. We will not enable “leftist” fascist collaboration, especially given the fact that the majority of “leftists” are genuinely confused by questions of culture, a confusion it would be a waste of time to reinforce and develop.

Their theory of unity amounts to this: if we simply stop talking about the divisions—oppression will cease to operate along those lines.

Okay, then let me spell it out for you explicitly: I deny that “oppression” is intersectional outright. The people, the masses, are oppressed by a concrete bourgeois hegemony — which they have come to call the Epstein class. Using the wrong pronouns is not oppression. “Microaggressions” are not oppression. Toilet wars are not oppression.

Saying what we know must be done about American racism might upset the Trump supporter, whom he is desperate not to offend. They do recognize that these things exist, but they do not attempt any position on these issues other than a vague notion of “building socialism.”

Do you have any concrete proposal about “what should be done,” except changing the words everyone uses, kneeling, checking our privilege, or some other performative, bourgeois nonsense deserving of nothing but mockery?

What must be done regarding it? In fact, formal, political equality of ‘races’ was established with the Civil Rights Act. According to our theory, the next, critical stage lies finally in the unity of the nation around class struggle. It’s precisely the monopoly bourgeoisie which continues to insist we re-enact the civil rights era in so-many different ways: That ‘revolution’ in American history more or less reached its conclusion, now we face a new revolution rooted in class struggle, which the monopoly bourgeoisie has a clear and obvious interest in suppressing, avoiding and denying.

Can my transgender daughter join the women’s volleyball team? How is this to be mediated?

Questions such as these must be genuinely decided by the people themselves by the collective logic inherent in collective existence and the norms they establish materially and culturally. They cannot be decided ideologically by ‘theoreticians’ or according to a purely individual logic, which then imposes itself on communities, on the basis that it is ‘liberation.’ The same holds true, for instance, for the status of the mandatory hijab in countries like Iran.

These questions cannot be answered on a purely ideological or political basis but have to do with the integral, functionally established logic of coexistence itself — which obeys a distinct logic and different laws than the whims and fancies developed within a given individual’s consciousness. Notice I do not even deny the possibility that the American people might decide, on the basis of a collective logic, that this could be. Your question is, in the first place, wrongly formulated: Don’t ask a political authority, ask with respect to the logic, the rationality, inherent in the formation of collective norms.

On concrete questions of human dignity, the MAGA Communists vacillate.

Because not everyone agrees with you about what constitutes human dignity, and we would prefer that this question is decided organically by the American masses themselves when they have actually acquired political sovereignty in the first place.

We do not premise our revolutionary convictions on the basis of special cultural terms and conditions we seek to impose on the American people. We genuinely seek their concrete liberation, including the collective liberty to decide what kind of culture and people they will be — not according to ideals, or theories but based on the practical reality of a collective existence emancipated from capitalism once and for all.

When asked about immigration: “No, they can’t come in—they upend opportunities for other workers.”

Is that our reasoning regarding mass immigration? Or is it the simple observation that in a planned, socialist economy, unrestricted, individually-based mass migration doesn’t exist? And that there are no counterexamples of it existing?

code that legalized same-sex marriage, transgender rights, adoption, and surrogacy, which was approved in a landslide by national referendum after over 79,000 public meetings.

To be clear, this was one of the most, if not the most, unpopular referendums in Cuba’s history and had to undergo numerous modifications and revisions that attached unrelated, yet somewhat popular policies to it. It was also constructed under the influence of US-educated Mariela Castro, who had a special, personal interest in promoting LGBT rights.

It was one of the most contentious referendums in Cuba’s history. The so-called “landslide victory,” after numerous revisions, consisted of 66% support — whereas the precedent established by almost all state-led major referendums usually pass with 85%-95% support. Moreover, an unusually high number of 26% of people abstained.

State-led referendums in countries like Cuba often also serve as a proxy for overall and general support for the state itself. The Cuban family code, by all accounts and according to precedent, was clearly passed reluctantly by a loyal Cuban population which did not want to contradict the will of its state. Note that since 1959, not a single state-led national referendum failed to pass among the population.

In fact, I don’t think there was ever a referendum in Cuba’s post-revolutionary history as unpopular as this family code. If there was one, please cite it.

If you want to speak in terms of facts, include the full picture and don’t lie to yourself or others just because it seems ideologically expedient.

the policy was defensible not because the working class deliberated and affirmed it, not because it is morally right, but because it is Cuba’s, and Cuba has the right to self-determination.

Are we supposed to decide what is morally right and wrong for Cuba now? This is outright bourgeois cosmopolitanism, in no way compatible with the Marxist–Leninist tradition. If the family code is universally “morally right,” is China, the DPRK, Iran, etc. “morally wrong” for rejecting it?

The Congress built the organizational and ideological groundwork that the Communists carried into the 1940 Constitutional Assembly, where six Communist delegates — led by Blas Roca and Juan Marinello — argued for the abolition of birth-status discrimination, for racial equality under law, and for women’s economic independence.

Yes, and all of this has been established within Marxism, by both theory and practice, to align with the content of revolutionary struggle. There is no automatic equivalence or continuity between this and experimental family codes regarding alternative sexual lifestyles or identities, which have no proven practical relationship to revolutionary struggle anywhere in the world at any point in history and moreover lack coherent, correct theoretical foundations within Marxism, to be regarded as such. To reiterate, the Cuban family code referendum had nothing to do with any popular, revolutionary struggle. It was imposed, from the top-down, by Mariela Castro and met a degree of resistance that is actually unusual within Cuba’s democracy. It was the most unpopular referendum in Cuba’s history, reluctantly passed by a population that appeared largely ambivalent toward it.

Yet in America, when the working class takes up these same questions, to practice our own right to self-determination—to unify on our own terms, the MAGA Communists consider it a disunifying diversion.

By “the working class,” who are you actually referring to? What working class movement? Where? You want to draw an equivalent between Cuban revolutionary struggles and America today. Ok, so who in America is the equivalent ‘Communist Party’ or revolutionary force? Zohran Mamdani?

Eddie and many other MAGA Communists admit privately that the left is correct on these questions of oppression, but ‘discipline’ themselves not to say so publicly.

Honestly, not at all. If anything…

A movement that surrenders debate on cultural questions to the bourgeoisie cannot hold the line against total political capitulation.

There’s no surrendering anything. It will be possible to speak of proletarian culture once the basic premises of proletarian organization, etc. have been established. By all means, if you can successfully build an independent, Left-Wing political movement — to say nothing of an independent, revolutionary proletarian movement — that decides organically to adopt the most extremely liberal cultural positions, we will give you credit where credit is due.

I am simply skeptical that this is possible, and I am convinced that the ‘leftist’ attachment to cultural and identity politics is precisely related to the factors that attach them to the Democratic Party and the basic inability to establish political independence. Prove me wrong. Why would I be bothered by that?

Classes: Individual Identities or Social Tendencies?

The leaders of the MAGA Communists are social media influencers — ”content creators” — whose relationship to politics is the production and consumption of online content. The influencer experiences politics as a feedback loop between content and audience: he posts, the audience reacts, he adjusts, the audience grows. When the MAGA Communists elevate this feedback loop from a communication tool to a mode of political organization superior to democratic institutions, they are asserting the universality of their own class’s habits, horizons, and organizational forms—and in doing so construct a sect.

Ah yes, and Lenin was simply a newspaper huckster, inevitably condemned by his individual ‘class.’ That is totally how class works in Marxism, you see. The views of every single individual are invariably determined by their specific, individual material habits and lifestyles. Hence the bourgeois ideology of Fredrich Engels and the lumpen, unemployed worldview of Karl Marx, you see.

This is simply a stupid, vapid, retarded distortion of Marxist historical materialism, making a mockery of basic class analysis by conflating the specific content of individual consciousness with the collective reality of class existence. It’s a petty, unserious attempt at reductionism, failing to engage with the specific ideas in question and instead reducing them to some individual pathology. Only when the irrationality of the specific claim has been established can we then begin to speculate about more pathological, ‘hidden’ causes. But you haven’t demonstrated the irrationality of any view.

What is especially stupid about this line of argumentation is that you then go on to prove, by quoting me directly, that I did not actually begin as a livestreamer or ‘content creator.’ I became a livestreamer and content creator on the basis of the conclusions I arrived at by way of theory and not the reverse. So this defeats your entire argument: If my theory is a consequence of my ‘personal class position,’ why then did it actually precede my ‘class position’ itself? Was I magically possessed by the collective spirit of the livestreaming class one day? It’s so disappointingly ill-thought out. None of us “began” as influencers. We began as Marxists who did not believe that running websites like Geese Magazine was an effective way to disseminate our ideas.

Moreover, the reference to “democratic institutions” unironically is cynical and deserving of nothing but mockery.

Their leaders engage in production of theoretical journals, livestreams, and manifestos that address no concrete struggle and organize no one.

If you say so.

Communists must demand that our party derive its political line not from the social habits and forms of its internal cadre

To be clear, the “habits” Gigi is referencing are the basic Leninist principle of developing a media presence so that the Party can actually have a voice and deliver a message to both workers and other potential cadre in the first place.

Like, he’s not talking about some random, arbitrary job or something but the literal, indispensable condition of Party organizing according to Lenin himself. Gigi calls this a “social habit.” Alrighty.

but from systematic investigation—deep integration into the conditions, needs, and struggles of the working class; that it synthesize these into a coherent political program; and that it return this program to the masses for verification through practice

Sounds like a ‘cybernetic feedback loop,’ except way less effective and efficient and done by a maximum of like five friends who know each other real life.

Through this, it grows to embody not a fraction of the working class, but the whole class

So why haven’t you become the whole class yet?

The MAGA Communist “cybernetic” model inverts this at every step. When engaging with MAGA, the MAGA Communist influencer arrives, offers hollow slogans, and leaves with footage.

Ok, so the supposed epitome not only of our practice but my entire theory of how popular sovereignty has transformed can be reduced to one video four years ago where I proved that in 2022, you could open a dialogue with MAGA people as a Communist and find a lot of common ground. Because that’s all you’ve seen, that means that’s all there is. You have truly mastered and really have acquired knowledge of our movement. It simply sufficed for you to watch one video to articulate a universal, general model of “MAGA Communist” strategy, the ACP, and my theory about popular sovereignty. This is genius, renaissance-man level curiosity!

Gigi is deeply confused, potentially stunted mentally.

The ACP, in the classically sectarian way, has substituted its class’s internal life for the working class struggle.

The “class” in question, according to Gigi, are people who try to advance the Party’s message and reach to as many people as possible. Being in a Party that strives to reach the masses condemns you eternally to a specific position within the universal division of labor and suffices to constitute an entirely new relation of production. Hence Lenin’s real class background was being a newspaper writer. He evidently condemned the entire proletarian movement for the internal life of his own class. This is the root cause of his argument in What is to be Done, about the establishment of an All-Russian newspaper.

In fact, why stop there? Perhaps walking itself, the process of using your legs to get from point A to point B, constitutes the internal life a completely distinct class, the Walkers. Versus, of course, those who crawl, perhaps, those who might rollerblade, or even skip. This is Gigi’s brilliant understanding of how classes actually form materially.

Gigi, I’m trying not to insult you. Very desperately. But just one simple question: What made us qualify as representatives of the so-called “class” of livestreamers? Given the fact that within that “class,” we remain incredibly marginal? Given the fact that the majority of the members of that “class” not only do not share our specific consciousness but a completely contrary outlook?

To be absolutely clear: One cannot speak of the formation of a class simply on account of a relative position within the ever transforming, reproducing division of labor. To identify a given form of consciousness with the interests of a given class requires showing how it is constrained not simply by the practices of a specific division of labor (for example, plenty of practices, like walking from point A to point B, can themselves be determined by objective necessity!) — but serves only the purpose of establishing and reproducing this specific division of labor.

Moreover, classes are not simply particular divisions of labor, otherwise, different forms of proletarian labor would constitute distinct classes. Classes are defined by distinct relationships to the reproduction of the (integral) division of labor within society itself. Claiming that ACP is “constrained” by social media engagement depends on two critical arguments you have yet to actually demonstrate are correct:

1. That somehow the basic goal of party-building could expand if the ACP abandoned having a presence on social media
2. That somehow social media engagement is the only outcome the ACP can achieve. But that’s just as retarded as claiming that, in attempting to walk from point A to point B, a person could only ever walk — when in reality, they are walking to get to point B! And if they aren’t fully there yet, does that mean they never can? What gives you the right to dispense such a judgement? We’ve grown to 1,000 members in two years and have absolutely made leaps and bounds when it comes to the acquisition of vital skills and organization internally. By what metric do you judge and condemn us as a dead end? Because we don’t have the money the bourgeoisie gives to the Democratic Party and its aligned ‘movements?’