chapotraphouse

The reactionary character of many workers in the US comes primarily from being in the imperial core and from the settler-colonial situation within the US creating racial, gender, sexual, religious, ethnic, and nationalist antagonisms. It's more complicated than just uniting the workers, because some workers are elevated to a special status by their placement within imperialism and settler-colonialism.

I'm not entirely pessimistic about this like Settlers, but the situation is very difficult. Vulgar workerism like Amber is presenting is not grounded in theory or material reality.

Because Amber understands that you practically have to build communism with some of the dumbest stupidest most racist and most reactionary people, and not a glorious soviet-realist style gang of clear eyed ideological comrades.

Amber is not trying to build communism. Amber is a SocDem. She projects more sympathy for chuds than for the marginalized.

"escape" from fascists is literally a reactionary individualistic daydream. You can either kill them or rehabilitate them, and the idea of a glorious purge of evil is also a deeply reactionary individualistic daydream.

The US doesn't have very many active fascists, it just has a swarm of reactionary liberals that play with fascist rhetoric.

However, I don't see any logic here tied to the post. Do you think you rehabilitate fascists by holding your tongue and not criticizing them or something? How much success have you had "rehabilitating" fascists without criticism? What could thay even ever mean?

Lastly Amber knows this because she works with actual union members who aren't ideologically consistent terminally online communists in general, but typically blue collar physically broken Amerifats who have no issue voting for Trump.

What union work does Amber do?

I do work with blur collar workers all the time and they are mostly incoherent, ignorant, and manipulable, not fascist.

We can talk about white people or reactionaries or whatever all we want till the cows come home, the real problem we ignore by doing that is that there are 322 million people in this country and only a teensy tiny bit are your glorious soviet-realist gang of comrades, less than like 1%. Slightly above the total votes that De La Cruz got in the 2024 election. The vast majority of them are various levels of idiotic reactionary. Being mad at them for their own stupidity is Democrat braincheerlead a .

Few socialists ignore the problem of small membership or our numbers. Nearly all of our strategies are around how to increase membership and to do more with less. The more idealist segments, socialists or socdem, are actually more in line with your line, here. The Democrat tailist strategy, the idea that you do not need principles or hard lines lest they alienate reactionary sentiment and that you grow by being "big tent" all the way up to, say, having no real position on Palestine, celebrating every union action regardless of its content (including anti-war groups applauding war machine machinists and attending their rallies with no plan to join or coopt). They end up having no lines at all and are just a reflection of bourgeois electoral politics, of bureaucratized captures unions and no plan to coopt or agitate within them, just to cheerlead where "the working class" is, which is reallt just a false stereotype spread by right wing media putsches.

Literally your answer is in your complaint: "Well you call them the scum of the earth, why wouldn't they hate you" -- literally a basic understanding of human communication.

A basic understanding of human communication would acknowledge that you must have an actual negative line on key reactionary sentiments and that you will have enemies based on that line. The question to ask is who are you going to recruit. If your strategy is to go for those who are already as far to the right as it gets, you will alienate everyone else and shoot yourself in the foot every time. This is not how anyone that actually does anything productive irl operates.

Half of this thread is saying how white people basically need to be John Brown to be good allies. I agree with that sure. How the fuck you actually gonna get them to do that though? Kill all the Non-John Browns? If the logical ends of your ideological thinking is that "everyone is just going to have to do the right thing and I'm not going to deal with icky people", you're no different than the Democratic Party's core offering.

In the US, it takes a pipeline. Few people go straight from dedicated reactionary to communist, but they may take a path via SocDems or othet forms of liberalism. Often it is the fact that socialists are consistent allies of the margibalized that brings them to us, that we havr had a consistent line during theit journey. You do not attract those people through opportunism.

I'll take all the downboats now.

This instance does not have downvotes.

I don't argue with people John Brown would've shot and your bullshit sounds like he'd have turned you into a speed loader

We can talk about white people or reactionaries or whatever all we want till the cows come home, the real problem we ignore by doing that is that there are 322 million people in this country and only a teensy tiny bit are your glorious soviet-realist gang of comrades, less than like 1%.

Understand that I have no fucking issue with tagging the toes of as many crackers as humanly possible if it means my people finally achieve the liberation that's been tacitly withheld from us. I already approach living as a subject of empire in this country with the understanding that settlers are fundamentally-irreconcilable, fundamentally-existential enemies.

Amber.