Let’s try a spiky reply to this tweet on the #mainstreaming #dotcons platform, these spaces often reek of superficial analysis and throwing around half-baked ideas without engaging with the deeper structural issues. let’s see if anything happens?
On the subject: “the culture of spontaneity, and mass horizontalism.” Yes, these approaches have their flaws—particularly when they lack clear strategy or organisation—but the #mainstreaming dismissing of them as ineffective wholesale shows a lack of understanding of their historical context and value. Spontaneity and horizontalism emerged as responses to the failures of top-down bureaucratic models of the left, which stagnated under Cold War pressures and co-optation. To be claiming they “can’t really compete” without acknowledging why they arose or their ongoing relevance in decentralised movements is lazy analysis.
And then there’s the smug messaging that “that’s something almost everyone now agrees on.” Really? Who is “everyone”? This nothing more than an appeal to a nebulous consensus that doesn’t actually exist. Plenty of activists, organisers, and theorists still see value in horizontalism—just not in isolation or as an end in itself. Pretending the debate is over is the kind of rhetoric that shuts down critical engagement rather than advancing it.
Moving on to the second tweet, “Agree on need for organisation (…that are trade unions or trade union focused).” While trade unions are vital, especially in reclaiming workers’ rights in the face of rampant exploitation, reducing “organisation” to trade unions is a narrow view. Trade unions, while necessary, aren’t sufficient to address the wider cultural, ecological, and social crises we face. There’s a world of organising happening outside of unions—mutual aid networks, co-operatives, tenant unions, and the growing need for grassroots digital activism, to name a few—that is every bit as crucial. This is a kind of blinkered nostalgia for “the union, and nothing but the union” which fails to account for the multiplicity of struggles we’re dealing with.
Then there’s the call for “a systematic approach to cultural work.” Absolutely, but what does this mean? As so often, these statements dont explain or offer a vision. Instead, we get the vague assertion that it should focus on “actually doing culture that is popular, not moralising and nostalgia.” While it’s true that moralising and nostalgia often cripple cultural efforts on the left, this critique feels like it’s punching at a strawman. What is this “popular” culture we’re supposed to aim for? Affective work is not about chasing popularity for its own sake but creating counter-narratives that resonate with people’s lived experiences and inspire action. Popularity without substance is meaningless—just another form of hollow spectacle.
Lastly, the tone throughout this thread oozes the worst kind of detached irony. It’s performative critique—pointing out issues without contributing to constructive or actionable paths. If anything, this “chatter” mirrors the liberal commentary class it seeks to critique: smug, self-assured, and ultimately irrelevant to those who are actually deep in the trenches building alternatives.
If we’re serious about confronting the failures of the left, we need less posturing and more meaningful engagement with the grassroots challenges at hand. We need to embrace complexity, grapple with historical lessons, while building cultural, technological strategies that balance mass appeal with radical substance. Its sad to say but dismissing ideas with “memes” half-hearted quips and lazy assumptions gets us nowhere.
Now what would a #fluffy reply look like 🙂
