discipline posted:did she know who david duke was? I can't watch the show, I don't have enough internet
my guess is probably not
discipline posted:did she know who david duke was? I can't watch the show, I don't have enough internet
a) She's been on the show at least twice in the past few years so she was definitely capable of typing his name into Google sometime during that period
b) She has a video on #GamerGate (lol) that include an Anders Breivik-inspired rant about "cultural marxism" so she is probably just a standard crypto-fascist.
boy, with all these distractions coming out of absolutely nowhere, i think we should take a break, so Let's all go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes.
daddyholes posted:no time to talk, quick update: some people in iran have said some nasty things about jews. i propose we direct the left's attention toward that instead so we can more effectively combat american imperialism.
You have to start wrapping your mind around that fact you post on an internet forum and don't direct the left.
daddyholes posted:hold on, transmission coming in: questionable racial rhetoric in this North Korea press release. we'll need to discuss that first.
boy, with all these distractions coming out of absolutely nowhere, i think we should take a break, so Let's all go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes.
This is completely disingenuous btw, you can claim any sort of intra-leftist criticism is a distraction and foreclose it entirely if you want, but in the actual real world crypto-fascist rants and Hitler FM appearances by people leftists are supposed to take seriously are actually perfectly legitimate grounds for criticism and not at all comparable to State Dept. propaganda about the DPRK or whatever.
Lessons posted:You have to start wrapping your mind around that fact you post on an internet forum and don't direct the left.
getfiscal posted:Well, I direct the left. I'm the Leader of the North American Marxist-Leninist Bolshevik Alliance, which is the principal pre-party organization of hyperleft eurohoxhaists. Lessons, you can be the Youth Liaison if you like.
I'll make the website.
Posted from my Samsung John Carmack Special Edition IV-DMG
anti-imperialism is a simple understanding that without imperialism capitalism would stop growing and therefore die (or be forced into open warfare exposing its reactionary core). it is similar to the syndicalist idea that workers stopping working would by itself destroy capitalism. syndicalism failed because it neglected politics and the need for the party to not only sustain a general strike but overthrow the system. interestingly anti-imperialism has similar tactics (broad coalitions like ANSWER, emphasis on the largest population possible protesting like before Iraq) but has far lesser goals than syndicalism. it fully understands that anti-imperialism itself can never become a positive communist political project. all it can do is force the conditions of exploitation to return home and allow communist projects to develop in the third world without imperialist violence.
therefore who one allies with in the anti-imperialist struggle is irrelevant, as anti-imperialism is not even a political movement. it is simply a broad alliance that allows politics to begin developing without the distorting effects of imperialism on the first world labor aristocracy and the third world "survival" nationalist movements. it has no moral component and is specifically designed to appeal to as broad a base as possible. especially in america which was reactionary-isolationist for most of it's history and has only become fully militarized for endless war after world war II. it is an understanding that people like Thug Lessons cannot be progressive (myself as well) as long as the imperialist system exists, and that we are the same as David Duke except feel more guilt.
also, saying that anti-imperialism is (or should be?) apolitical and simply focuses on the number of bodies and mass appeal of the messages ignores the real ruptures and distinctions that have occurred in the anti-war movement. for example, those who march with slogans like 'sanctions not war' or who want to condemn one war while keeping quiet about 'the good one' going on elsewhere. the split between ANSWER and UFPJ in the antiwar movement is indicative here.
you may say that the above are liberal co-opters who are not practicing 'true' anti-imperialism (and i would certainly agree), but this is exactly where politics are necessary to make those distinctions.
postposting posted:none of that has anything to do with why it's important to court neo-nazis in anti-imperialism movements.
also, saying that anti-imperialism is (or should be?) apolitical and simply focuses on the number of bodies and mass appeal of the messages ignores the real ruptures and distinctions that have occurred in the anti-war movement. for example, those who march with slogans like 'sanctions not war' or who want to condemn one war while keeping quiet about 'the good one' going on elsewhere. the split between ANSWER and UFPJ in the antiwar movement is indicative here.
you may say that the above are liberal co-opters who are not practicing 'true' anti-imperialism (and i would certainly agree), but this is exactly where politics are necessary to make those distinctions.
nobody said you don't need politics, of course communists need politics. nobody would care about ANSWER if it wasnt a tactical front for the PSL (nor would it be as effective as a tactic). but thats the point, anti-imperialism is a tactic that works that precedes communist politics which is the realm of principled stands and sectarian splits. not all vanguard parties are communist but all communist parties are vanguards, not all terrors are revolutionary but all revolutionary states have terror, etc.
the point im making is that the split between ANSWER and UFPJ came because anti-imperialism had reached its limit and the time came for communist politics. you may think that's dumb because there was no communist revolution but the failure of the war on syria proves that the work has been done. the US can no longer invade countries to impose its will and thus the cold war between BRICS and the EU/USA is turning hot. the facade of democracy in the USA is gone and though its easy to get lost in the heart of imperialist propaganda the overwhelming majority of the world's imperialist sub-partners are turning their backs on the USA. I think its important to take a long view of these things even if that is precisely the failure of anti-war coalitions.
as for your other point, I agree its basically impossible to get rightists and liberals to oppose the "good" wars of sanctions, UN humanitarian work, oil and trade wars, etc and that any anti-imperialist needs to step into the realm of politics here. but rather than a matter of ideological disagreement, we need to rethink our concept of politics as changing what is acceptable (legible) rather than what is correct. I think the point of politics should be to make even neo-NAZIs and liberals debate within the terrain of anti-imperialism, so that for example even the neo-liberals and anti-india fascists in Nepal are forced to speak in the language of maoist revolution. im not saying to engage with neo-nazis, only that communists are the only ones who truly engage in politics as such and any other questions are a matter of tactics and real investigation into the present friends and enemies.
But Steve Ault argues that some controversial positions have actually been useful to ANSWER. “They come up with a wedge issue to use against the other coalition, and they scream ‘racism,’” he says. “And they do it very well.”
The question of Palestine is currently ANSWER’s principal “wedge issue.” UFPJ’s own hedging on linking the struggles in Palestine and Iraq has served ANSWER well. In the prelude to the March 2004 rally in New York, ANSWER insisted on making an end to the occupation of Palestine a central demand of the demonstration. UFPJ balked, stating that while they agreed it was important to address Palestine, the main purpose of the march was to express broad opposition to the war in Iraq. ANSWER responded by circulating a letter online, signed by numerous Arab and Muslim groups, charging that it was “racist” of the antiwar movement not to give the Palestinian cause equal footing.
...
Ramey also admits that IAC’s “position on Milosevic isn’t something there is a lot of awareness of in the Muslim communities where ANSWER has been successful in organizing.”
Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, which works with ANSWER while not being an official member of the coalition, is aware of its position on Milosevic, and makes no bones about his disagreement. “I don’t support that line. I think Milosevic was a genocidal butcher. But we can work with people we have disagreements with.”
...
From a purely tactical standpoint, there may be some logic to de-emphasizing unpopular issues in the interests of building a broad front around a single issue (Iraq). But from a moral standpoint, attacking ANSWER’s positions on Palestine and Mumia rather than (or even in addition to) its stance on Milosevic and Tiananmen Square dangerously muddies the water. The prior two causes may be unpopular, but they are perfectly legitimate; in contrast, the Workers World positions on Bosnia and Tiananmen Square constitute defense of the indefensible.
Steve Ault recognizes this danger. “I work with communists, and I have no problem doing so,” he says. “My real problem with ANSWER is their process, or lack of it. Workers World gives communism a bad name. They use the charge of red-baiting to silence criticism in an unprincipled way. And much of the criticism against them comes from people arguably further to the left than they are.”
http://www.warresisters.org/nva/nva1105-1.htm
This whole article is great because it shows how 1st world communist politics work. Communist politics are sort of like trolling because communism is the only genuine political position, all others are negotiations within the liberal political paradigm. So you attack the guilt liberals have, you use broad based tactics to push specific radical issues, you play on the egos of first worlders to feel "bigger" than politics. It sorta reminds me of black bloc tactics which turn the theater of liberal demonstrations into violence in an attempt to provoke police violence and bring contradictions to the fore.
Liberals have no interest in ending imperialism, its in their class interest. You can either lie to them and get them to oppose imperialism without realizing it will destroy their own privilege until its too late or expose the truth, begin war, and bring out the inherent fascist in every liberal. Within that distinction the difference between a fascist and a liberal is only a matter of time.
getfiscal posted:actually comrade stalin believed that many liberals and democrats were potential allies against fascism, see the popular front strategy that won power in many countries in eastern europe and east asia. if you think stalin and mao were stupid for allying with first world liberals on their terms please explain why.
Stalin also allied with NAZI germany against the west. Mao allied with the KMT. I don't know how you can argue they had a principled position against fascism as inherently worse than liberalism, rather they had very pragmatic views of fascism as an aspect of liberalism, its inevitable failure and inter-imperialist war opening up space for communism.
babyhueypnewton posted:Stalin also allied with NAZI germany against the west. Mao allied with the KMT. I don't know how you can argue they had a principled position against fascism as inherently worse than liberalism, rather they had very pragmatic views of fascism as an aspect of liberalism, its inevitable failure and inter-imperialist war opening up space for communism.
i said they were potential allies against fascism, that you could split and divide the bourgeoisie and rally much of the lower ranks (the petty-bourgeoisie) to the revolution. the position that the bourgeoisie was reactionary as a bloc was the trotskyist position (and also various leftcoms), which is why they opposed the popular front policy. this isn't a matter of deep principle, it applies to situations where fascism (which is an extreme form of bourgeois rule) is the main problem, such that you can unite with liberal (bourgeois-democratic) parties to defend against fascism.
this might not apply as much in the contemporary situation, but that's because fascism is a reaction to insurgent proletarian rule, and proletarian rule is not considered a big immediate threat in many parts of the world. maybe a few places. the problem you identify is that most communist parties had difficulty shifting from anti-fascism to struggle against liberal-democratic capitalism, which is true enough, but the new left confronted those sorts of questions head-on (may 68, for example). i think most of the problem was material and connected to the leadership of the communist movement, which was devastated by the wars of liberation from 1940s onwards and wanted a breathing space to recover, which was used by the US and its allies to consolidate power, wreck socialism and divide up the world. this is a hiccup in the grand scheme of things, though. communism is inevitable.
babyhueypnewton posted:im not saying to engage with neo-nazis
maybe you aren't but im pretty sure this is exactly what superabound was saying
Petrol posted:Every one is missing the point here, which is, Syrian Partisan Girl is basically a spook, sponsored by CIA/MI6 (a la Brown Moses). Its pretty obvious. She does her best to tie the anti-imperialist (pro-Assad) cause to wacked out right wing western conspiracy causes celebres such as KKK and gamergate. The latter is actually the most telling imo, which is why i posted the youtube. If it doesnt ring any serious alarm bells that a supposed Authentic Syrian Pro-Assad Activist has time to make vlogs about "cultural marxism" and "ethics in game journalism" then i dont know what to fucking tell you.
Dont lump me in with them
aerdil posted:even if she was 100% correct on everything she said i'd still be turned off by her obviously manipulative and base presentation. but of course a person with some integrity wouldn't portray herself in an oversexualized manner in the first place for the sweet sweet viewcounts
yeah how come you need boobs before anyone will pay attention to you #mensrights