X reveals a weakness in left-wing rhetoric

Written by Jack McGovan / Edited by Libby Langhorn

War is peace, 2+2=5, and posting on a platform that praises Hitler is progressive. I can only imagine what it would have been like to live in a world where the left collectively agreed that believing those statements implied psychosis. Unfortunately, we live in one where popular left wing accounts still continue to post—and even pay for verification—on X. The left is plagued by a rhetoric problem, and the call is coming from inside the house.

Grok, the site’s resident “AI”, started spewing anti-semitic nonsense including positive remarks about Hitler after an update on July 4th. Only a few months earlier, Grok poisoned the information ecosystem with rants about “white genocide” in South Africa. Elon Musk, the owner of X, has himself spread the narrative that there is an ongoing genocide against white people in the post-apartheid country—like father, like son pattern recognition software. He also played a role in establishing the ongoing fascist project in America, which is offering fast-tracked refugee status to white South Africans.

Despite the far-right and fascist rhetoric spread by the owner and through the platform, many progressives—like those at Novara Media or PoliticsJOE—continue to line the manbaby’s pockets. Both media companies have reported on Grok’s descent into fascism, yet the official accounts and those of individual media personalities attached to the organisations still continue to post and pay for X.

Grok, the site’s resident “AI”, started spewing anti-semitic nonsense including positive remarks about Hitler after an update on July 4th.

That two of the largest progressive media companies in the UK, despite the rise of “MechaHitler”, either don’t care or don’t believe that it’s problematic to stay on the platform and contribute to it financially hints as to why progressive political projects across the globe are failing. Assuming the more charitable latter option, I think a progressive presence on X can be traced back to a specific weakness in left-wing rhetoric. 

An inescapable soundbite of recent times is “we need systemic change, not individual change”, typically accompanied with a reference to the mega rich. I agree wholeheartedly with the underlying sentiment: we as individuals are limited in our power, and it is only as a collective mass changing the systems that govern us can we truly shape the world into something that benefits the majority over the ruling class. 

Many on the left, however, have quite clearly internalised the statement to mean that they don’t have to change a single thing about their lives in order to achieve their political goals. Why should I stop posting on X, the fascist propaganda machine, when it should be up to governments to reign in the powerful and regulate this kind of problem away? Nothing will change if I alone stop posting!

The anti-apartheid movement that led to the establishment of the Republic of South Africa began as a consumer boycott.

When individuals sold their Teslas or refused to buy them as part of the Tesla Takedown campaign, sales for the company plummeted to their lowest level in three years and share values dropped by a quarter—despite expectations that 2025 will be a record-breaking year for electric vehicle sales. The boycott and the associated campaign played a pivotal role in damaging the company.

Historically, boycotts have had significant success in achieving political goals. The 1955 Montgomery bus boycott and the 1963 boycott of Birmingham businesses in the US inflicted major costs on business owners, thereby forcing them to support racial integration. The anti-apartheid movement that led to the establishment of the Republic of South Africa began as a consumer boycott.

Evidence shows us time and time again that individuals using their economic power as part of a broader collective can change the world, yet left-wing rhetoric continues to downplay the agency we all have in our everyday decisions. I understand that corporations have tried to shift blame onto individuals for issues like the climate crisis, and the rhetoric comes from a desire to oppose that, but we’ve gone too far the other way where we’re dismissing a tried and tested tool of resistance.

The logic leveraged by progressive media companies in particular puzzles me. I’ve watched shows where a talking head will rally against the idea of individual action, followed minutes later by a plea for donations to help support the work and build a more progressive media ecosystem. The way you spend your money has zero bearing on the world, but also please give us your money to help change the world.

Posting about your perfect opinions on X isn’t going to achieve much aside from bolstering the reputation of a site that literally spreads fascist propaganda.

Even if you could excuse the fascism (yikes), I don’t see an argument for remaining on X. Researchers have found evidence that the platform boosts right-wing accounts and posts, and the website throttles links, so it's particularly senseless for media companies to have a presence there. Almost double the number of Democrats, 40%, have had a “mostly negative” experience on the platform versus Republicans—why keep using an app you clearly don’t enjoy?

The only explanation I can think of, aside from addiction or masochism, is that progressives believe it’s important to remain on the platform for whatever reason. By posting there, however, all progressives are doing is providing revenue to further boost right-wing talking points and legitimising a platform that literally spreads facist propaganda. You aren't reaching a fraction of the people that Grok or Musk are, no matter how convincing you think your hot take is.

Ultimately, progressive people are just as susceptible to soothing messages as other groups. Being told that we don’t have to change anything about our lives for the systemic change we all desire is an appealing message—it paints a comfortable picture of the path to a better future. However, it’s an image that shares more in common with generative “AI” slop than anything grounded in reality.

Posting about your perfect opinions on X isn’t going to achieve much aside from bolstering the reputation of a site that, again, literally spreads fascist propaganda. A boycott, on the other hand, started a domino effect that brought down apartheid, proving that practice makes progressive.