*User A *
I did not enjoy or agree with the video. Both of the key questions, the family and immigration, that the author raises are treated in a superficial manner. It broadly comes down to obvious points (a) the development of the nuclear family was structured around private property; (b) you shouldn't blame immigrants. However, as to what a socialist movement should be arguing for in 2023, it is a bit more difficult. I think the 'abolish the family' discourse is hugely unhelpful, as neoliberalism is already abolishing the family - people are having fewer children, long-term relationships and sex. This is not a good thing, as Adorno realised already mid-20th century - for the average working class person, the family is one of the only broadly non-capitalist spaces in their life. Would this change with a socialist revolution? Probably but that does not mean it is wise for the left to hold an anti-family position.
As to immigration, it is difficult because the obvious and correct answer (unionise migrant workers) has not worked. This does not mean that it is acceptable for anyone on the left to pursue any anti-migrant activities but it does mean that just shouting 'open borders' is probably counter-productive. Immigration does bring down wages (as Marx also said..) and it is horribly managed by the husks that are neoliberal states, further breeding far-right reaction. The mission of any left government should be to better manage migration, create easier access to citizenship and jobs, and to promote trade unions. That's about as close as we can get to any coherent strategy.
Most fundamentally, the key error of the video is assuming that a mechanistic and crude 'scientific socialism' has all the answers. This is like going back to early Kautsky who was in denial about a revolution not having taken place because the theory says it should have. Anyway, just a couple of thoughts - I appreciate the initiative of the creator but I was not too keen on the content.
User B replying to User A
What you are proposing is really just tailing the most reactionary elements of the working class under a "left wing" guise, since it is up to the Communists to put forward the correct line even if it is unpopular, it was unpopular two decades ago to stand for lgbtq equality, it is still unpopular to stand for trans equality, as Marxists, we are the vanguard of the masses, not simply lagging behind them and taking up the worst politics of the reactionaries, or even keeping mum and tacitly allowing for reactionary views to go unchallenged.
And the same with Immigration, simply blaming the immigrants for not joining useless yellow unions is no real solution to anything, it isn't even a solution to "native" workers, since unions are just there to represent the Union Leadership, who are, by and large, bought out. This has historically been the case, and the shameful support the American Union threw behind the Chinese Exclusion Act shows this to be the case. The real answer is of course revolution and the destruction of the capitalist imperialist system which America is a head of, and the creation of a genuine Worker's State, which definitely will welcome all workers with open arms, as the USSR did, and for which such "light" bigotry that you have displayed will have no place.
Finally, the error you are making is that your own view and analysis aren't grounded in revolutionary politics and a material analysis, but on your own prejudices based on "pragmatism", i.e. that you are denying the possibility of revolutionary change, and hence need to give all these reactionary concession to the right. Rather than they being like Kautsky, you are more like most of the Second International following the most reactionary "patriotic" element and throwing their full support behind the imperialist war (and not even Kautsky, since he, in an extremely tepid way, at least opposed the first world war and voted against War credit)
User A replying to User B
Okay, taking points in turn. Thank you for an extended reply:
(1) I agree that sometimes doing the right thing is unpopular. However, I disagree with vanguard of the masses bit, maybe a self-proclaimed vanguard but there is no serious communist movement in the Western world - either vanguardist or otherwise. LGBT rights definitely benefitted from the support of socialists (see Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners in the UK) but they were not won by any concentrated communist action - it was a liberal coalition and now the cause has been taken up by the establishment forces. This battle is broadly won, at least for now.
(2) I don't think trade unions are the only socialist institutions that matter but at this time, they are the key institution. I think you're American, so you might have a slightly different perspective on the history of unions from a European. I've never blamed migrants for not joining unions.. It is incredibly dangerous for these individuals and they face significant level of structural violence in order to stop them from joining. That said, one of the left's key focus should be to organise migrant workers - I think a trade union is more fitting than a Marxist vanguard party, as again, except for Trotskyist groups or niche political parties, the left does not really have any proper institutions in the Anglo world (I'm not going to comment on DSA, as I don't know about it enough).
(3) Finally, I think you're replicating the worst of 20th century communist culture by just throwing slogans around. I'm not reactionary in any serious sense - I just don't think we should open all borders tomorrow or aim to abolish the family under neoliberalism. Both of these views are compatible with anti-racist and feminist perspectives. As to revolutionary politics - it is deeply saddening that the lesson many people have learned from Lenin is that you need to shout your slogans as loudly as possibly and then expect the people to follow. They won't. There is no revolutionary potential in the short-term in the Western world and I would challenge you to tell me where it could come from. Labour is weak and disorganised. This needs to be rebuilt before any sustained challenge against capital will be possible. Vivek Chibber's latest book 'The Class Matrix' is an interesting contribution toward the question 'how'.
User B replying to User A
(1) The question is whether socialists should take unpopular opinions or not, even if it is to their (electoral) detriment, such as one of our oldest platform, "abolish the family". I use the example of lgbtq+ rights, but Socialists have always been for their rights, even in the 1898, when Socialists, like August Babel, fought to decriminalize homosexuality.
(2) European Unions are just as much a tool of the union bosses as American ones, and taking an anti-migrant stance on account of their "lowering wages" has, even by the limited scope of bourgeois parliamentarianism, been a losing strategy. Why is the PCF, once the most popular Communist Party in the West, failing to find any support amongst the migrant population- people remember! And they remember Georges Marchais and all the PCF affiliated union shooting up xenophobia throughout the 80s in order get that temporary electoral high.
(3) Your condensation aside, the history of socialism throughout history is not a vindication of your reactionary (and anti-Marxist) tailing, but rather that it is up to the socialist to be the vanguard of the masses. I think you ought to reread Lenin rather than go to Vivek Chibber (an intellectual only recruited since he can provide some sort of intellectual heft to the intellectually bankrupt position of "class reductionism" that the Bernie People were desperately hungry for), since he is one for "sloganeering" as you say, since he was the one that created the term "vanguard party" precisely for this type of organization. Yes, the left is "weak and disorganized", but most communist party starts off small. The Communist Party of China started off with 20 members in 1921 in a country where everything is "weak and disorganized", and kicked out the Japanese and the American lackeys by 1949.