I mentioned recently that I was considering a return to X, or Twitter as I still think of it.
There were four reasons. First, that is where politics is discussed the most, like it or not.
Second, many other left-wingers did not leave.
Third, that is where people who do not agree with what I have to say are.
Fourth, that is where people who might be persuaded are.
Comments here confirmed that being where the action is might be important. As a result, I posted a Twitter thread yesterday. It was posting threads of Tweets - up to 80 long in one case - that I became quite well known on Twitter. Yesterday's was a modest ten, and since it was based on a blog that had already appeared here, I did not repost it here. But the results showed that in terms of reach, Twitter remains worthwhile:
I cannot usually reach 182,000 people in any other way on an issue like this, or as technical as this. We have only done that on YouTube with issues relating to Trump.
I suspect there will be more threads to come.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard, I think it was wise of you to return to X – I also still call it Twitter – due to the reasons you outline. It’s also where other MMTers are posting messages and where I agree there might be more reach.
I’ve also written letters to The New World (formerly The New European) and The New Statesman suggesting that all their contributors on matters of political economy and government finances, do so from the basis of the garbage of neoclassical economics, and that therefore as ‘radical’ publications and in the interest of ‘balance’, they ought to seek out and publish articles from yourself, Steve Keen and Stephanie Kelton, to name but a few. I hope they will reach out to you all.
That would be good, but very unlikely in the case of the New Statesman.
[…] already mentioned this morning that I have returned to Twitter, or X, I could not resist the odd little […]
In the context of the B. O. E.s and H. M. G.’s rentier pleasing economic policies and practices, might your messages be more important than the medium?
Yes
Good that you are getting the exposure.
As I said before, consider the algorithm’s power to crush you, maybe think carefully about which topics might result in that quicker than others.
As I’m not there any more I’m not familiar with how the X censorship operates nowadays or what sort of tablet-fuelled tantrums M**k has nowadays as he runs DOXE instead of DOGE
Glad you did this Richard – I think by and large its best not to ‘leave the field’ even when it is sometimes contaminated or rigged.
Thats also why I wish the hundreds of thousands who were drawn to Labour during ‘Corbyn mania’ hadnt left the field – to be taken over by the dark forces who now run Labour.
And also why Greens Lib Dems and Labour and independents should be talking and seeing how best to bring about a fair voting system – rather than talking about ‘new’ left parties etc etc.
You won’t face any censure from me for going back to Twitter – the ends justify the means.
I share a general hostility to Twitter, or X that is found here; because of the way it serves trolls and trolling so well, and is so easily exploited for the manipulators of extreme politics (masquerading as the ‘common ground’), for deeply unattractive purposes. But the issue you raise should, in principle lead the Left to look more closely in the mirror to understand the problem (but it never, ever does). The problem is that the Left is generally far less interested in outcomes than it is in the pristine purity and virtue; the self-righteousness of the position it holds. It is left to someone else to do the hard labour, to actually achieve something that works.
It is outcomes not ideology that alone matters. It is a lesson the Left appears incapable of learning. I appreciate this comment will likely prove notably unpopular; but there we are. So be it.
I agree with you re the Left, John.
Hence my other post this morning.
I noticed this characteristic on the matter of criminal gangs exploiting young girls. The fact that there may be a particular line of inquiry that was ideologically difficult for the Left to face; simply produced the response that led the Left, almost universally to ignore it; in the hope it would go away (or – if true – never come out?). The pressure to conform to a purity of ideological virtue is the most powerful weapon the Left has – and which it uses very effectively to silence debate of difficult issues, and allow daft ideas to prevail. It is left to others to grapple with the really difficult problems; the ones we never solve. This is disastrous politically; the public can see that Left Virtue is often held in place by intellectual cowardice. Why the Left can’t see this is beyond me.
Much to agree with.
Well, John’s comment will not be unpopular with me.
There is something wrong with the Left for sure and for me, technically, it does not exist anymore.
All I would say is that ‘self righteousness’ is a hallmark of much of our politics today – Thatchers was a key exponent of that. The other thing to say is that we must not forget the ‘cunning of unreason’ – the way in which any good idea in politics can be effectively and subtlety undermined and perverted by bad actors with deep pockets and vested interests. Our Establishment are master at that.
My biggest frustration with the Left is how untechnical they are. We have all this history and facts about the money supply, the role of the state etc., and they will just not go and look and talk about it.
Much to agree with.