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.
So it sounds like the plan is support fascism, for what? To sacrifice who knows how many women, trans people, genderqueer people, POC, just so after society falls there possibly might be a Hail Mary throw at achieving communism?
Certainly not “support”, no. But frankly, the US has repeatedly been the ones to arm the fascists. That the US is getting involved in this particular fight has probably more to do with their opposition to Russian influence than any stand for justice or protection of the innocent. To say there isn’t much trust in the US acting in anyone’s interest except their own would be a monumental understatement.
I would say (everything beyond this point is my own speculation, since they aren’t here to answer your question), they would rather a treaty be struck sooner rather than later, which would mean the US easing up on lethal aid. I think their general position is that not Russia, Ukraine, nor the US have the interests of the actual working class (or women or LGTBQ+ people) in mind, and the sooner the war ends the fewer people die and the sooner the real work of fighting for those rights can begin. But there will be nothing good about the reconstruction that happens after the war. Ukraine will be beholden to US interests and perpetually in the middle of a geopolitical conflict with Russia for the foreseeable future (no matter what the resolution of the war is). The whole situation is shit, but “let them fight until the bitter end” is probably the least empathetic take I could think of.
I really hate that anything less than “Russia will loose at all costs” will get you lambasted with accusations of simping for Russia. There are precious few here who are willing to acknowledge that there are no good options with this war. I guess it’s easier to let the anger drive decisions when there are no satisfactory solutions to the conflict.
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.
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.
So it sounds like the plan is support fascism, for what? To sacrifice who knows how many women, trans people, genderqueer people, POC, just so after society falls there possibly might be a Hail Mary throw at achieving communism?
Certainly not “support”, no. But frankly, the US has repeatedly been the ones to arm the fascists. That the US is getting involved in this particular fight has probably more to do with their opposition to Russian influence than any stand for justice or protection of the innocent. To say there isn’t much trust in the US acting in anyone’s interest except their own would be a monumental understatement.
I would say (everything beyond this point is my own speculation, since they aren’t here to answer your question), they would rather a treaty be struck sooner rather than later, which would mean the US easing up on lethal aid. I think their general position is that not Russia, Ukraine, nor the US have the interests of the actual working class (or women or LGTBQ+ people) in mind, and the sooner the war ends the fewer people die and the sooner the real work of fighting for those rights can begin. But there will be nothing good about the reconstruction that happens after the war. Ukraine will be beholden to US interests and perpetually in the middle of a geopolitical conflict with Russia for the foreseeable future (no matter what the resolution of the war is). The whole situation is shit, but “let them fight until the bitter end” is probably the least empathetic take I could think of.
I really hate that anything less than “Russia will loose at all costs” will get you lambasted with accusations of simping for Russia. There are precious few here who are willing to acknowledge that there are no good options with this war. I guess it’s easier to let the anger drive decisions when there are no satisfactory solutions to the conflict.
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.