I dunno I kinda feel like he was grifting but who knows. part of me just thinks: show me someone who commits a SA and I will show you someone who isn't a revolutionary leftist but idk
those allegations are so baseless even the anti-tankie crowd doesnt mention it much. could it have happened? sure. but the evidence is shaky at best and rests on one historians word, Simon Sebag Montefiore. Plus Kruschev was on an anti-Stalin speedrun.
I know this is such a lib line, but the validity doesn't matter to her point. I think Stalin probably didn't do it, but in the future there certainly will be some important revolutionaries who commit SA because that's something that, sadly, people in positions of power do that with alarming frequency. We're gonna have to figure out how to reconcile that very effective revolutionaries can sometimes be terrible people.
protecting abusers in the name of the revolution is doing the work of the feds for them. no single person is so important that it's worth protecting them while jeopardizing the whole movement - it's precisely our urge to protect abusers that feds use to infiltrate, divide, and destroy.
You're right, if we're talking about active people then yes, we gotta root out abusers. I was thinking more in cases where it's uncovered afterward, but didn't qualify it in my comment.
It's a nice sentiment that'll blind us to reality. What will actually differentiate us from our enemies is how we will respond when leftists do it. I don't care if he says the right things.
Sure but his spin isn't the same as others using that word, he uses the rightwing language but his takes are more of an anti rainbow-capitalism and pink-capitalism approach. I reckon he believes he can appeal to those people and drag them left by doing so, now you might consider that a futile waste of time and I'd be inclined to agree with you but his content has a distinct difference to theirs.
To be honest though at the moment I don't really care that much for arguing over what he is, and don't really see it as mattering. I do care about seeing these allegations get the proper airing they deserve and with any luck seeing a court room.
Sorry this wasn't a dunk on you, I even brought it up because I myself was on the fence about Brand.
I just thought it was funny
I still think the same way about his whole shtick tbh. Just that these accusations are also very believable unfortunately.
I dunno I kinda feel like he was grifting but who knows. part of me just thinks: show me someone who commits a SA and I will show you someone who isn't a revolutionary leftist but idk
I think some of Stalin's allegations make this a difficult position to maintain.
those allegations are so baseless even the anti-tankie crowd doesnt mention it much. could it have happened? sure. but the evidence is shaky at best and rests on one historians word, Simon Sebag Montefiore. Plus Kruschev was on an anti-Stalin speedrun.
I know this is such a lib line, but the validity doesn't matter to her point. I think Stalin probably didn't do it, but in the future there certainly will be some important revolutionaries who commit SA because that's something that, sadly, people in positions of power do that with alarming frequency. We're gonna have to figure out how to reconcile that very effective revolutionaries can sometimes be terrible people.
protecting abusers in the name of the revolution is doing the work of the feds for them. no single person is so important that it's worth protecting them while jeopardizing the whole movement - it's precisely our urge to protect abusers that feds use to infiltrate, divide, and destroy.
You're right, if we're talking about active people then yes, we gotta root out abusers. I was thinking more in cases where it's uncovered afterward, but didn't qualify it in my comment.
ahh got it. that makes more sense.
It's a nice sentiment that'll blind us to reality. What will actually differentiate us from our enemies is how we will respond when leftists do it. I don't care if he says the right things.
deleted by creator
Sure but his spin isn't the same as others using that word, he uses the rightwing language but his takes are more of an anti rainbow-capitalism and pink-capitalism approach. I reckon he believes he can appeal to those people and drag them left by doing so, now you might consider that a futile waste of time and I'd be inclined to agree with you but his content has a distinct difference to theirs.
To be honest though at the moment I don't really care that much for arguing over what he is, and don't really see it as mattering. I do care about seeing these allegations get the proper airing they deserve and with any luck seeing a court room.