It’s a “no true scotsman” but those aren’t leftists. Leftists don’t praise and try to emulate autocrats. Those are people pretending to be leftists who are trying to co-opt, radicalize, or confuse leftists.
Leftism by definition is opposed to authoritarians.
Some are pretending to be leftists. But some just have a Manichean view of the world that they can’t shake. Some people change labels when they convert from fundamentalist religion or blind nationalism, but don’t change the framework of their views.
No shit, I have seen people outright denying Houthi atrocities because “They wouldn’t do something like that!”
Because the Houthis are opposed to The Great Satan™, they’re automatically rewritten in these people’s minds to be at least acceptable in every facet of their existence.
Judging the means by which the colonized resists their colonizers is pretty much liberalism on a stick. Resisting colonialism in real life is not Ewoks, Millenium Falcons and happy endings. It’s nasty, messy and brutal.
This user literally expected Palestinians to wait for the west’s pearl-clutching to stave off Israel’s genocide - you know, that thing that has failed to stop Israel for decades now - instead of accepting the logistics and support Iran is obviously willing to supply (albeit for Iran’s own geopolitical ends). It doesn’t get more Liberal™ than this.
This is literally the kind of white liberalism that MLK criticized in his Birmingham letters - and, having spent a lot of time now dealing with the liberal hive mind here on lemmy.world, I suspect MLK had put his finger on something that is far, far more dangerous and deeply-rooted than the left wants to believe.
I’m 1000% with you. I probably just don’t understand enough context of the Middle East conflict to see where he did what you’re saying.
How are you inferring that about their views on Palestinian resistance? Are the Houthis like Hamas or something and he’s saying it’s wrong that anyone would support them?
I’ll be honest, I upvoted that comment because I agree with the idea that people might change labels and not actually change their beliefs or how they come to conclusions. I’m removing the upvote now though because I clearly didn’t understand it entirely and I’ve learned I’m not the biggest fan of neo-liberalism. I still want to be able to comprehend what they wrote better so that’s why I’m asking.
Edit: I also find it weird to say everyone/most people that disagree with me are fake and malicious. I’d be inclined to assume they’re just ignorant or whatever. There’s a lot to learn to be a good leftist, imo!
Are the Houthis like Hamas or something and he’s saying it’s wrong that anyone would support them?
Think about what this would look like during WW2. Would rooting for the Soviets to win the battle of Stalingrad make you a Stalinist or even a tankie? Of course it wouldn’t - you are just cogniscent of the fact that things would actually get a whole lot worse if the Soviets lose. But that won’t stop a whole bunch of fascists (and their liberal sympathizers) from pretending that you are. Not much has changed about that.
When someone is dropping bombs on your neighborhood and murdering people like you right in front of your eyes you don’t get the luxury of waiting for a squeaky-clean and Hollywood-perfect organisation to hand out AKs and Semtex - you have to go with what is there. And a lot of what is there aren’t the nicest of people because the nicer people either don’t have the logistic support to give you anything or are simply dead. If the old PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization - which was a lot more nationalistic than Hamas) was still around, these same liberals would be hysterically demonizing them in this scenario, too.
There’s a lot to learn to be a good leftist, imo!
Not much point in being a “good leftist” (whatever that may mean) in my opinion - I’d rather say be a “good at it” leftist.
That makes a lot of sense. I appreciate the explanation and WW2 comparison.
That last bit was a light joke. When I’ve asked others questions in the past I’ve been met with hostility; some people seem to act as though a lot of this stuff is obvious. Maybe it is for some, or I’m just a bit dense
When I’ve asked others questions in the past I’ve been met with hostility;
It’s a gigantic weak spot when it comes to the online left - a lot of people learn new thngs that make them angry, but haven’t learnt enough not to be toxic about it - leading to what some has called the “Circular Firing Squad” effect. We all go through it, I guess.
The fact that there genuinely are a lot of bad actors feigning “leftism” online doesn’t make it any easier.
Think about what this would look like during WW2. Would rooting for the Soviets to win the battle of Stalingrad make you a Stalinist or even a tankie? Of course it wouldn’t - you are just cogniscent of the fact that things would actually get a whole lot worse if the Soviets lose. But that won’t stop a whole bunch of fascists (and their liberal sympathizers) from pretending that you are. Not much has changed about that.
Generally speaking (and impersonally) it usually comes down to the intersection of capitalism and war. Pure unadulterated military industrial complex is a hallmark of American-style liberalism. So if a person identifies with the military industrial complex that will usually be your prime indicator. It isn’t perfect but it’s fairly reliable with a few exceptions.
That makes perfect sense. Where did they identify with the military industrial complex?
Sorry if I’m coming off dumb. It seems like y’all are reading between the lines/catching some kind of dog whistle, or I just missed something super obvious
Explain the absolute takes on the Russian war by Jeremy Corbin and Noam Chomsky. They have encouraged Ukraine to surrender, which is tacit approval of Russia’s invasion by giving Russia everything that they ever asked for
What the actual fuck? War efforts are what’s needed. Because you know, people are dying because of Russian bombs. It’s shooting back that saves lives. Defending their viewpoints is basically tacit approval of wars of aggression.
People who advocate for peace with Russia are in fact advocating for Ukrainian surrender. That’s because Russia’s condition IS surrender. If they had more modest goals, that would be one thing
Socialism is inherently authoritarian? The ideology where power, ownership of production, and wealth is decentralized, removed from the oligarchs and capitalist elite and given back to those who generate it? That’s authoritarian?
I think you, like many who have been subjected to decades of propaganda have equated “socialism” with the failed states that are “communist” in name only, where power and production was centralized to be redistributed to the people, but never followed through with the decentralized part. They’re certainly authoritarian, but they are not socialist.
Also communism is a specific form of socialism. Socialism is not necessarily communism. Like how all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs.
Do you really believe capitalism gives economical power to the people? And if yes, do you say “people” as “everyone” or “people” as “some people based on some criteria”?
It’s a “no true scotsman” but those aren’t leftists. Leftists don’t praise and try to emulate autocrats. Those are people pretending to be leftists who are trying to co-opt, radicalize, or confuse leftists.
Leftism by definition is opposed to authoritarians.
Some are pretending to be leftists. But some just have a Manichean view of the world that they can’t shake. Some people change labels when they convert from fundamentalist religion or blind nationalism, but don’t change the framework of their views.
No shit, I have seen people outright denying Houthi atrocities because “They wouldn’t do something like that!”
Because the Houthis are opposed to The Great Satan™, they’re automatically rewritten in these people’s minds to be at least acceptable in every facet of their existence.
Says the liberal pretending to be a leftist.
What do they say that makes you think they’re more liberal than leftist?
Just trying to learn, not arguing or anything
Judging the means by which the colonized resists their colonizers is pretty much liberalism on a stick. Resisting colonialism in real life is not Ewoks, Millenium Falcons and happy endings. It’s nasty, messy and brutal.
This user literally expected Palestinians to wait for the west’s pearl-clutching to stave off Israel’s genocide - you know, that thing that has failed to stop Israel for decades now - instead of accepting the logistics and support Iran is obviously willing to supply (albeit for Iran’s own geopolitical ends). It doesn’t get more Liberal™ than this.
This is literally the kind of white liberalism that MLK criticized in his Birmingham letters - and, having spent a lot of time now dealing with the liberal hive mind here on lemmy.world, I suspect MLK had put his finger on something that is far, far more dangerous and deeply-rooted than the left wants to believe.
I’m 1000% with you. I probably just don’t understand enough context of the Middle East conflict to see where he did what you’re saying.
How are you inferring that about their views on Palestinian resistance? Are the Houthis like Hamas or something and he’s saying it’s wrong that anyone would support them?
I’ll be honest, I upvoted that comment because I agree with the idea that people might change labels and not actually change their beliefs or how they come to conclusions. I’m removing the upvote now though because I clearly didn’t understand it entirely and I’ve learned I’m not the biggest fan of neo-liberalism. I still want to be able to comprehend what they wrote better so that’s why I’m asking.
Edit: I also find it weird to say everyone/most people that disagree with me are fake and malicious. I’d be inclined to assume they’re just ignorant or whatever. There’s a lot to learn to be a good leftist, imo!
Think about what this would look like during WW2. Would rooting for the Soviets to win the battle of Stalingrad make you a Stalinist or even a tankie? Of course it wouldn’t - you are just cogniscent of the fact that things would actually get a whole lot worse if the Soviets lose. But that won’t stop a whole bunch of fascists (and their liberal sympathizers) from pretending that you are. Not much has changed about that.
When someone is dropping bombs on your neighborhood and murdering people like you right in front of your eyes you don’t get the luxury of waiting for a squeaky-clean and Hollywood-perfect organisation to hand out AKs and Semtex - you have to go with what is there. And a lot of what is there aren’t the nicest of people because the nicer people either don’t have the logistic support to give you anything or are simply dead. If the old PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization - which was a lot more nationalistic than Hamas) was still around, these same liberals would be hysterically demonizing them in this scenario, too.
Not much point in being a “good leftist” (whatever that may mean) in my opinion - I’d rather say be a “good at it” leftist.
That makes a lot of sense. I appreciate the explanation and WW2 comparison.
That last bit was a light joke. When I’ve asked others questions in the past I’ve been met with hostility; some people seem to act as though a lot of this stuff is obvious. Maybe it is for some, or I’m just a bit dense
It’s a gigantic weak spot when it comes to the online left - a lot of people learn new thngs that make them angry, but haven’t learnt enough not to be toxic about it - leading to what some has called the “Circular Firing Squad” effect. We all go through it, I guess.
The fact that there genuinely are a lot of bad actors feigning “leftism” online doesn’t make it any easier.
Hey, what’s your opinion on Biden again?
Sure you want to go down this road? You know it ends with Biden being compared to Chamberlain, right?
Generally speaking (and impersonally) it usually comes down to the intersection of capitalism and war. Pure unadulterated military industrial complex is a hallmark of American-style liberalism. So if a person identifies with the military industrial complex that will usually be your prime indicator. It isn’t perfect but it’s fairly reliable with a few exceptions.
That makes perfect sense. Where did they identify with the military industrial complex?
Sorry if I’m coming off dumb. It seems like y’all are reading between the lines/catching some kind of dog whistle, or I just missed something super obvious
I am trying to be diplomatic so I was speaking in general and not about anyone specifically.
Now if you check any given person’s post history you can usually get a clearer picture.
(There’s just known personalities and prejudices at work here rather than random strangers inferring things on this thread alone.)
The liberal who doesn’t believe in the concept of critical support.
edit: Sorry… replied to the wrong post.
OP blames all the world’s ills on anyone to the left of Manchin.
Leftists are radicalized by default, genius.
Explain the absolute takes on the Russian war by Jeremy Corbin and Noam Chomsky. They have encouraged Ukraine to surrender, which is tacit approval of Russia’s invasion by giving Russia everything that they ever asked for
Explain Hassan shilling for Hamas
Show me where Corbyn and Chomsky has said this.
https://twitter.com/achkhikvadze/status/1786879477919649927
He is just saying Ukraine can’t win so it has to accept Russia’s terms (which are basically surrendering its sovereignty)
I guess it’s just a pure coincidence that it’s now perfectly clear that Ukraine can’t win, eh?
Ukraine actually can’t lose as long as it has the support of the free world
Here’s Corbyn doing his job as a Russian asset trying to stop the flow of weapons into Ukraine
https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/1554360196935335936
Here’s what I typed…
Did you misunderstand, perhaps? Here’s what I absolutely did not say…
Is any of this getting through to you?
Neither of those say what you say they said…
Corbin says he encourages “peace” efforts rather than war efforts, which you know duh everybody does.
Chompsky is similar, why or rather now are you twisting either of those in your head to mean something else?
What the actual fuck? War efforts are what’s needed. Because you know, people are dying because of Russian bombs. It’s shooting back that saves lives. Defending their viewpoints is basically tacit approval of wars of aggression.
Notice I didn’t take a stance I simply stated that what you said that article contained is not in fact the truth.
People who advocate for peace with Russia are in fact advocating for Ukrainian surrender. That’s because Russia’s condition IS surrender. If they had more modest goals, that would be one thing
Again notice how I didn’t take a stance I just said you’re a liar. Address having zero credibility at this point first and go from there.
You mean the grifter? He knows what he is doing. And he is doing this on purpose.
Stalin would disagree
The modern definition of leftism is socialism and co. And socialism is inherently authoritarian.
Socialism is inherently authoritarian? The ideology where power, ownership of production, and wealth is decentralized, removed from the oligarchs and capitalist elite and given back to those who generate it? That’s authoritarian?
I think you, like many who have been subjected to decades of propaganda have equated “socialism” with the failed states that are “communist” in name only, where power and production was centralized to be redistributed to the people, but never followed through with the decentralized part. They’re certainly authoritarian, but they are not socialist.
Also communism is a specific form of socialism. Socialism is not necessarily communism. Like how all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs.
Dog
Giving the people the power of the economy is authoritarian. That makes sense.
Where is a socialist country run by people instead of a political elite class?
That’s called capitalism.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
is that a joke or is that a serious claim?
Wut?
Do you really believe capitalism gives economical power to the people? And if yes, do you say “people” as “everyone” or “people” as “some people based on some criteria”?
There’s no need to believe in facts.
You are not answering my question, Is the fact that it gives economical power to the majority of people or just a certain category of people?