It might have been an ideal view, even if it does not reflect what actually happens here. Would this kind of system (an individual having more control of their society and workplace) have any problems?
I think if Twitter lefties do take power, they might turn away from that democratic ideal and repeat the Brezhnev era and its cronyism.
The immediate critique is that they’re mostly all student nerds. They’re mostly attracted to the aesthetics of the movement and aren’t pre-disposed to carrying it on for very long. They’re probably already middle class, probably college graduates, and their politics are more than likely about projecting what Matt Christmas has described as “college morality” into the real world. At worst their political energies can be described in two ways: following through on Christman’s analysis of the “American Leftists” despite their high-energy in political posting are not all that politically active in their real sense as evidenced by how even if electoral means are adjusted to make their involvement even more impactful all the traditional electoral groups still win (ie. the land lords and developers in New York City’s mayoral elections). The second failing of them as a class is that
As Organizing.Work, an IWW-based news and organizing journal discusses: they’re not at all good unionists, even if they do walk the walk and throw up the virtues in their life and posts they’ll still report co-workers to the bosses no matter how much Chomsky or Bookchin or Kropotkin they’ve read because they’re still at heart shitty middle class kids.
They will most likely end up like Bernie Sanders if they win, not a real radical force. That is if their own political cultures of commiseration let them participate enough to do so.
The only people who often seem capable of acting on the “Radical agenda” in the leftist since are the working class themselves who feel the alienation and the pain where it counts: in the heart. To quote from the linked Organizing article:
During an IWW campaign in Chicago, Steve, a former sheet metal worker, refused to support the union when approached about it. Years prior, he was run out of his job by both the bosses and the union and his concept of what a “union” meant had been colored by an ugly history. Had the IWW campaign involved a union election, he probably would have been a “no” vote — a “5” in the 1-5 business union organizer’s assessment of support. But when it came to shopfloor action, he emerged at the front of the fight. The union carefully built towards a work stoppage to win higher pay, and Steve led the charge, and even accepted a position as one of two representatives of the workers in bargaining with management.
One of the faculty campaign organizers mentioned above reflects that in one campaign among adjuncts, “the worker-leaders, those who were most actively engaged in forming the union early on, were in the business department, the criminal justice department, and some of them were politically conservative.”
The most capable, militant fighters who emerge in a given campaign are often people who had zero leftist commitments prior, or even any previous union experience. There’s a natural reason for this: folks are fighting from the heart, for what really matters to them and their family. Their motivation doesn’t come from abstract politics, as is the case for some leftists.