American black civil rights groups have alwaysALWAYS stood in 100% solidarity with the Palestinian people. They recognize that they're part of an identical struggle and demanding that black people rescind that solidarity because you want to do your genocide is the most psychotic unhinged murderous opinion you can have.
I have literally never wanted to be Stalin more than this exact moment.
At the bottom of left solidarity is that all beings stand to benefit from communism. We don't need scapegoats or bag-holders for our practices to work. Our theoretical solidarity is limitless. Even a Fascist who surrenders and submits to intensive re-education may possibly partake.
Right solidarity works like a Ponzi scheme, requiring victims and suckers. Anxiety about being on the losing end of the equation is built-in, and is the shared interest at the root of their intrinsically precarious solidarity, which requires a steady increase in the supply of externalized human sacrifices to maintain the "peace".
That is not entirely true. Dr. King, for example, spoke out in support of Israel. Had he not been murdered, I do not believe he would have maintained that support, but the fact remains that in the middle of the century, some movement leaders believed Israel to be a fundamentally progressive project, and were blind to the suffering of Palestinians.
I don’t want to give MLK a pass, but I was thinking about something similar: so many European communists in the 19th century had kinda bad takes on the USA (Marx and Engels included).
Obviously we are all products of our times, but I wonder if how much information we have at our disposal now (thanks to the internet) skews our perceptions of how easy it is to find out information, even things we are receptive to.
It was basically impossible to learn anything about anything back in the 90s. Like you could go to libraries and then you were limited to whatever they had, and if you knew it existed you could use inter-library loan. But, like, the limits of the world were newspapers, popular magazines, bookstores, and libraries. Good luck learning anythign without committing serious time to it.
Just getting exposed to it could be challenging, today you could have a Hexbear tell you on the Internet to read Lenin or post hog and, you know, go from there.
Good luck for that to happen before the Internet, especially if you lived in a reactionary or just lib territory
Even with so much access to information, almost everyone still gets almost all their information from local sources they trust, in their native language. Actively seeking out foreign news and blogs is a good counter to this. Browser translation is excellent these days.
These responses, I'm going to get brain cancer...
American black civil rights groups have always ALWAYS stood in 100% solidarity with the Palestinian people. They recognize that they're part of an identical struggle and demanding that black people rescind that solidarity because you want to do your genocide is the most psychotic unhinged murderous opinion you can have.
I have literally never wanted to be Stalin more than this exact moment.
This is one thing the left will always have that the right will never: solidarity.
Well, the billionaires have class solidarity, and
has a pseudo-solidarity with the billionaires he lives vicariously through, but that's about it.
At the bottom of left solidarity is that all beings stand to benefit from communism. We don't need scapegoats or bag-holders for our practices to work. Our theoretical solidarity is limitless. Even a Fascist who surrenders and submits to intensive re-education may possibly partake.
Right solidarity works like a Ponzi scheme, requiring victims and suckers. Anxiety about being on the losing end of the equation is built-in, and is the shared interest at the root of their intrinsically precarious solidarity, which requires a steady increase in the supply of externalized human sacrifices to maintain the "peace".
deleted by creator
Wrong. If you stand with Palestine, you ain’t black, jack!
That is not entirely true. Dr. King, for example, spoke out in support of Israel. Had he not been murdered, I do not believe he would have maintained that support, but the fact remains that in the middle of the century, some movement leaders believed Israel to be a fundamentally progressive project, and were blind to the suffering of Palestinians.
I don’t want to give MLK a pass, but I was thinking about something similar: so many European communists in the 19th century had kinda bad takes on the USA (Marx and Engels included).
Obviously we are all products of our times, but I wonder if how much information we have at our disposal now (thanks to the internet) skews our perceptions of how easy it is to find out information, even things we are receptive to.
It was basically impossible to learn anything about anything back in the 90s. Like you could go to libraries and then you were limited to whatever they had, and if you knew it existed you could use inter-library loan. But, like, the limits of the world were newspapers, popular magazines, bookstores, and libraries. Good luck learning anythign without committing serious time to it.
Just getting exposed to it could be challenging, today you could have a Hexbear tell you on the Internet to read Lenin or post hog and, you know, go from there.
Good luck for that to happen before the Internet, especially if you lived in a reactionary or just lib territory
Even with so much access to information, almost everyone still gets almost all their information from local sources they trust, in their native language. Actively seeking out foreign news and blogs is a good counter to this. Browser translation is excellent these days.
Kind of like how liberals are co fused why the Irish have such a consistent history of supporting Palestine.
Wild how empathy is actually a foreign concept to them if it can't be weaponized.