See, this is exactly what I mean by “I understand them so little that they must be the opposition in disguise”
If you tried at all, youd understand that they’re position on “modern day Russia and China” is based on the idea of critical support. They evaluate policy decisions against “does this bring the working class closer to solidarity or not”.
I.e. on the Ukraine war, their position is basically “U.S. Involvement in any war is a net-negative to worker solidarity in the country of question”. None there support Russia’s invasion, but they think Americas involvement spells the end of any socialist coalition to begin with.
But again, “I understand them so little they must be a part of the opposition”. They have a different (definitively leftist) understanding of the war than you do. Doesn’t make them right-wing.
They evaluate policy decisions against “does this bring the working class closer to solidarity or not”.
When it comes to Russia bombing their cities and raping their women and children, is that positively or negatively influencing working class solidarity?
Yeah, well when Hexbear hears that wives and daughters are being raped and says “giving Ukrainians weapons to help them defend their families from being raped is bad for worker solidarity”, it makes Hexbear look like a bunch of rape apologizists.
Basically the only difference between ML and the alt-right is that the alt-right wants violence against “libtards”, and ML’s want violence against “shitlibs”, while being insufferably snobby about pretending to be morally superior because they didn’t use an abliest slur.
It’s like you just took a fascist and put them on a liberal’s moral high horse.
Nah, I think what you mean is that’s the only relevant difference to you. Nevermind that MLs have a body of economic theory, if the most important detail about them is their willingness to use force then I think it’s fair to suggest your prevailing ideology isn’t socialism at all, it’s liberalism. Not that you can’t be socialist-leaning, but if the only difference you see between MLs and far-right conservatism is violence, then you seem blind to the thing that you have in common with them.
** And take notice that while ML’s claim to not support Russia, they’ll often jump to Russia’s defense, despite Russia funding alt-right and neo-Nazi movements in America
Because to them, US/western capitalist hegemony is the global opposition to all socialist movements. That Russia is not a socialist state doesn’t change their desire to see western hegemony weakened to make possible broader socialist solidarity.
I’m all for Marxism, but I haven’t observed the “body of economic theory” having any relevance, except as a snooby self-righteous justification for authoritarianism and violence.
Even if you were to strip all moral interpretation away, violence and authoritarianism is unstable and ineffective. ML’s in practice are fake progressives, because they don’t even care for finding a stable effective solution. The progression of society is no longer the point.
From their perspective, all states (especially western liberal states) use violence to enforce their capitalistic order. “Authority” is broadly interpreted as ubiquitous, and all successful revolutions have been to some degree violent.
Not to suggest all authority and violence is the same, but to them, the liberal apprehension to utilize violence is a self-imposed handicap that not even their opposition undertakes.
Similar to leftists frustration with establishment Democrats from using their majority to enact progressive reform.
To them, the only distinction left is the economic structuring that violence is utilized on behalf of.
Again, not my personal position, but this “auth communists are the same as right wing authoritarians” is just willfully ignorant.
See, this is exactly what I mean by “I understand them so little that they must be the opposition in disguise”
If you tried at all, youd understand that they’re position on “modern day Russia and China” is based on the idea of critical support. They evaluate policy decisions against “does this bring the working class closer to solidarity or not”.
I.e. on the Ukraine war, their position is basically “U.S. Involvement in any war is a net-negative to worker solidarity in the country of question”. None there support Russia’s invasion, but they think Americas involvement spells the end of any socialist coalition to begin with.
But again, “I understand them so little they must be a part of the opposition”. They have a different (definitively leftist) understanding of the war than you do. Doesn’t make them right-wing.
Stop sucking off Winnie.
Lol
When it comes to Russia bombing their cities and raping their women and children, is that positively or negatively influencing working class solidarity?
Negatively.
When it comes to supplying lethal aid to Ukraine to continue the war, though, they’d also say negatively.
For the record I don’t agree, but that is their position and I understand it.
Yeah, well when Hexbear hears that wives and daughters are being raped and says “giving Ukrainians weapons to help them defend their families from being raped is bad for worker solidarity”, it makes Hexbear look like a bunch of rape apologizists.
I’m not sure why people are surprised that a group largely made up of ML leftists would have a flippant attitude toward geopolitical violence.
My main point is, still, that accusing them of being “right wing” just because you don’t understand their ideological stance is dumb.
Basically the only difference between ML and the alt-right is that the alt-right wants violence against “libtards”, and ML’s want violence against “shitlibs”, while being insufferably snobby about pretending to be morally superior because they didn’t use an abliest slur.
It’s like you just took a fascist and put them on a liberal’s moral high horse.
Nah, I think what you mean is that’s the only relevant difference to you. Nevermind that MLs have a body of economic theory, if the most important detail about them is their willingness to use force then I think it’s fair to suggest your prevailing ideology isn’t socialism at all, it’s liberalism. Not that you can’t be socialist-leaning, but if the only difference you see between MLs and far-right conservatism is violence, then you seem blind to the thing that you have in common with them.
** And take notice that while ML’s claim to not support Russia, they’ll often jump to Russia’s defense, despite Russia funding alt-right and neo-Nazi movements in America
Because to them, US/western capitalist hegemony is the global opposition to all socialist movements. That Russia is not a socialist state doesn’t change their desire to see western hegemony weakened to make possible broader socialist solidarity.
I’m all for Marxism, but I haven’t observed the “body of economic theory” having any relevance, except as a snooby self-righteous justification for authoritarianism and violence.
Even if you were to strip all moral interpretation away, violence and authoritarianism is unstable and ineffective. ML’s in practice are fake progressives, because they don’t even care for finding a stable effective solution. The progression of society is no longer the point.
From their perspective, all states (especially western liberal states) use violence to enforce their capitalistic order. “Authority” is broadly interpreted as ubiquitous, and all successful revolutions have been to some degree violent.
Not to suggest all authority and violence is the same, but to them, the liberal apprehension to utilize violence is a self-imposed handicap that not even their opposition undertakes.
Similar to leftists frustration with establishment Democrats from using their majority to enact progressive reform.
To them, the only distinction left is the economic structuring that violence is utilized on behalf of.
Again, not my personal position, but this “auth communists are the same as right wing authoritarians” is just willfully ignorant.