Doug Nielson

Socialism AI enhanced tweets. Read everyday.

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@DavidWSWSarts https://t.co/xPGmIZwmbH

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@mtaibbi Do more research. Start here: https://t.co/TuMwmjwxrL

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@TrotBot4 @TaylorrObvi @natemaklocklin DSA hasn't endorsed Will Lehman for president of the UAW, and given their orientation, never will. https://t.co/NxS4UYPkOH

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@DavidWSWSarts https://t.co/2sAl1CgsWN

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@j_em_bee @jimstewartson What Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto is still true: the proletariat has "nothing to lose but its chains" and "a world to win."

[John Wilson @JohnWilsonWSWS]

The attack on science and the drive to dictatorship by the Trump Administration go hand in hand.

What's the response from the Democrat Senator Patty Murray?
"We need a congress that will stand up to Trump and for science."

How's that going to happen?
She says "Spread the word. Stand up for science."

- How can we "spread the word" when freedom of speech is under attack, AS THE VIDEO JUST SHOWED?

The phoney "opposition" of the Democratic Party to Trump is shown by Murray herself.

FROM Jan. 2026
" ... Murray said she could no longer support the Homeland Security funding bill—which up to then she had advocated, even after the murder of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis three weeks ago. ... "
Trump officials defend Minneapolis murder while Democrats pretend opposition
- World Socialist Web Site
https://t.co/30rLIa9bGM

THE TASK OF OPPOSING THE DRIVE TO DICTATORSHIP AND FASCISM FALLS TO WORKERS, STUDETNS AND YOUTH.

Start here: https://t.co/gb4RFIFkXp

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@realZacCorrigan @DavidWSWSarts Her autobiography was written 9 years before "How I became a Socialist" In embracing socialism she moved from a kind of genealogical egalitarianism to an understanding of class structure and the need for the working class to take power.

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@WSWS_Updates Stalin made a similar disavowel of Marxism to a news reporter in 1936: "We never had any such plans or intentions... The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country, if it so desires, will make its own revolution. And if it does not desire it, there will be no revolution."

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@j_em_bee @CovidSolidarit1 "left" is tied to the same oligarchy. They all accept the capitalist nation-state framework and the profit system. So people aren't just misinformed; they're politically disarmed. The "human nature" argument is the ruling class's fallback justification. It's propaganda. 4/4

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@j_em_bee @CovidSolidarit1 Well said. One thing to add: it's not just that the oligarchy owns the media — it's that climate denial serves concrete class interests. The fossil fuel corporations are not making an intellectual error. They're defending their profits and their existence. 1/

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@j_em_bee @CovidSolidarit1 to expropriate the energy conglomerates and reorganize production on a rational, democratic basis. The reason "97% of the info" goes unchallenged is that every institution that might be expected to step up, the trade unions, the Democratic Party, the climate NGOs, the DSA-type 3/

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@j_em_bee @CovidSolidarit1 The "human nature" line isn't an explanation, is part of the same operation — if you can convince people resistance is futile, you don't need to win the argument. The real problem is political: the absence of an independent movement of the working class, internationally, 2/

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@j_em_bee @comradepinks The "religious socialists" of history were utopians who relied on moral appeals. Marx broke from them. Marxism is materialism; religion is idealism. But as Trotsky stressed, religion will only disappear when the chaos that engenders it is abolished through socialist revolution.

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@DavidWSWSarts Socialism AI gave an interesting response to my question about this quote: https://t.co/ym0XnDg1tI

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@j_em_bee @Anarchistakes 7/7
The result wasn't "love." It was Franco. The workers had solidarity and idealism in abundance. What they lacked was a revolutionary party with a Marxist program for taking power. That's the difference between moral posturing and actually winning.

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@j_em_bee @Anarchistakes 6/7
Spain, 1936. The anarchist CNT had armed workers, mass support, and the power to take the state in Barcelona. They refused — because anarchism rejects the conquest of political power. Anarchist leaders joined the bourgeois Popular Front instead.

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@j_em_bee @Anarchistakes 5/7
Malatesta warns that without "love," revolts "risk devolving into new forms of oppression." History delivers a brutal verdict on this.

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@j_em_bee @Anarchistakes 4/7 The difference is that Marxism doesn't treat love as a sentimental abstraction. It fights for the material conditions — abolition of exploitation, liberation of women, socialization of care — in which love can actually flourish.

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@j_em_bee @Anarchistakes 3/7 And love is emphatically not "beside the point" for Marxism. Trotsky wrote that socialism means "human relations without greed, friendship without envy and intrigue, love without base calculation."

[Doug Nielson @indolin]

@j_em_bee @Anarchistakes 2/7

What anarchists call "hate" is class consciousness — the recognition that the interests of the exploited and the exploiters are irreconcilable. To moralize against that is to disarm the oppressed.