stalin-gun-1stalin-gun-2

stalin-smokin

https://nitter.net/Is_Not_Brian/status/1749645809170493525

  • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
    ·
    11 months ago

    What is the point here? What do you think the left stands to gain by calling her a fascist?

    The useful part of this discussion is "she's a dead end for any real leftist movement." Calling her a closet Nazi adds nothing and clocks as "wack shit" even to people who eventually become leftists!

    We clown on Israeli officials for not realizing how unhinged they sound to people who don't already agree with them -- this is the exact same thing.

    • LesbianLiberty [she/her]
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It breaks the illusion that she is an ally in any way or that the avenues she took to power can be pursued by ourselves. They cannot. We won't plan around her at all and will instead dismiss her praise and admonish her resistance; and if the time ever comes understand she'll advocate the same insane violence against us that the fascists will.

      Edit: this isn't to reduce her to "just" a fascist. We don't treat her the same way we treat the proud boys. But she's a social democrat, which is the left wing of fascism and when push comes to shove she will absolutely side with capital.

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
        ·
        11 months ago

        It breaks the illusion

        It doesn't! People ignore it as "wack shit," exactly how you did!

        • LesbianLiberty [she/her]
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It's still fundamentally the truth, provable with historical precedence and her clear actions. Besides, posters like you will appear to be a calm and rational voice to my outrageous rhetoric. I think ultimately it comes out to a balance with both of these socialist perspectives given.

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
            ·
            11 months ago
            1. It doesn't matter how right you are if you can't get anyone to listen to you.
            2. There is no such thing as "fundamentally the truth, provable with historical precedence" when we're discussing a political opinion.
            • LesbianLiberty [she/her]
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Actually yes, the point of Marxism Leninism is that it follows Scientific Socialism, so the vast majority of things are no longer an opinion but simply a bank of knowledge that's grown over time with hypothesis and proven results, so that some issues are resolved and we need not seriously discuss them as they won't change in this mode of society (bourgeois led).

              Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc.

              ~ stalin-smokin 1924, nearly one hundred years ago in Concerning the International Situation

              Historically this has been shown time and time again. SPD in Germany cooperating with the freikorps during the Spartacist Revolution. Italian Social Democrats cooperating with Mussolini. The failed unity against naziism of the socialists and social Democrats. Labour cooperating with the Anglo empire to liquidate those colonized, labour cooperating with the American empire to liquidate Iraqis, progressive elements in the US having dogshit foreign policy because it may lead to better outcomes here if they shut up (Bernie supporting Israel and bombing Yugoslavia to smithereens). Etc. We can simply look at the course of AOC's career and see the same things appear time and time again. Fascism isn't just Nazis, it's the entire apparatus the bourgeois state uses and will use to attempt to annihilate leftists when they present any challenge whatsoever. It's not wrong to apply these historical teachings to today's figures when the reasons for it happening haven't changed.

              I also once would all read this and find it ridiculous, but frankly, the longer you spend organizing IRL and interacting with the state and other leftists, the clearer this all becomes. I've gone from an anarchist to a staunch ML because MLs are almost always correct and willing to correct themselves when they aren't (Cuba and LGBT). When I say AOC is a fascist, I know I won't convince those who haven't tried to organize IRL, but the real heads who know will know. And those who care about Palestinians being liquidated by the United States will come to this understanding as well.

              Edit: the point is having a sound analysis for MLs so they can properly engage with and tear down the world's order. Figures like you can act as the milquetoast that gets others on board, whereas eventually when engaging with the reality of the world they will understand and appreciate our seemingly extreme rhetoric.

              • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
                ·
                11 months ago

                I'm aware of the concept of scientific socialism. It does not mean we can perfectly predict the future, and it certainly does not mean we can perfectly predict future actions down to an individual level (AOC's).

                We could spend all day listing the differences between Germany and the USSR in the 1920s and the U.S. in the 2020s. If you want to be scientific, tell me how the predictive value of an experiment changes when you spend a century altering key inputs before running it again.

                • LesbianLiberty [she/her]
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  phoenix-think It depends, have the key inputs truly changed, or have the same incentives which cause social democrats to prop up empire and far right regimes when push comes to shove remained the same.

                  phoenix-objection-1phoenix-objection-2 AOC carrying water for Nazis liquidating Palestinians

                  phoenix-evidence When push comes to shove, these social democrats abandon all realistic modes of progressive change and instead ask us to stay within the system. When we don't they support the system coming down on us hard; if any real revolution or change were to occur it's clear she would stand on the side of the bourgeoisie like an old fashioned uncle tom. The fundamental incentives have not changed in over one hundred years; they value staying in the master's house more than liberation.

                  • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    If you think you can perfectly predict the future, I don't know what to tell you.

                    If you think there is no significant difference between late-czarist Russia or Weimar Germany and the modern U.S., I don't know what to tell you.