Yeah, I don't want another struggle session, but the DFNS is super based despite making the critical error of taking US support, All MLs and related tendencies should offer critical support (sorry Hakim), and I hope they have an amicable rapprochement with the Syrian Government and they own the Turkish Chuds.
Like, if there's an actual leftist project controlling territory and it's doing well and not wrecking other leftists in the area, support them if they aren't literally Pol Pot. Critique, yes, but support.
It's not that hard, you don't need to study Hegel for a decade to follow this rule of thumb.
Also I find it weird to call western volunteers, who presumably to an extent believe in the project, "white saviors". What difference is there between volunteering in Rojava versus volunteering during the Spanish Civil War?
They've seen Dances with Wolves so now they can't differentiate between mighty-whitey and genuine support of others.
Also a few MLMs have this weird anti-solidarity idea that takes a really good idea set (Focus on local material conditions before global stuff, Third World movements are of prime importance) and runs to absurdity (If you're focusing on anything but local stuff you're ruining the revolution. Only Third Worldism has any effect and you can't help in the 1st world.)
In both cases, it's abstracting from material circumstances into :zizek-preference:
I think the left as a whole needs to realize that a lot of our ideological differences are driven by people choosing ideologies that actually give them something actionable within their material conditions. The comfortable won't go off and start a people's war. The jobless won't unionize. Nobody wants to be led by an ML party with five members. It's harder to care about smashing the state if you live in an AES.
I think that a certain strain of third worldism is just a way for westerners to cope with doing fuck all to help any movement towards socialism other than post about how great China is to people who already agree with them.
The only possible thing I can think about is the difference between the composition of volunteers to both projects. Volunteers to the Spanish Republic commonly came from the organized Left where it was primarily parties of the COMINTERN would hold volunteer drives, fundraising events, anti-nationalist protests, etc. An example of this would be the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.
Whereas the volunteers to the Rojava Autonomous region are composed of the unorganized (or shattered) Left where it's primarily individuals that're volunteering, sending their own funds, and so forth.
I wouldn't really call it a critique since I don't really see it as one, but as an other observation of the status of the western left.
Yeah, I don't want another struggle session, but the DFNS is super based despite making the critical error of taking US support, All MLs and related tendencies should offer critical support (sorry Hakim), and I hope they have an amicable rapprochement with the Syrian Government and they own the Turkish Chuds.
Like, if there's an actual leftist project controlling territory and it's doing well and not wrecking other leftists in the area, support them if they aren't literally Pol Pot. Critique, yes, but support.
It's not that hard, you don't need to study Hegel for a decade to follow this rule of thumb.
Also I find it weird to call western volunteers, who presumably to an extent believe in the project, "white saviors". What difference is there between volunteering in Rojava versus volunteering during the Spanish Civil War?
They've seen Dances with Wolves so now they can't differentiate between mighty-whitey and genuine support of others.
Also a few MLMs have this weird anti-solidarity idea that takes a really good idea set (Focus on local material conditions before global stuff, Third World movements are of prime importance) and runs to absurdity (If you're focusing on anything but local stuff you're ruining the revolution. Only Third Worldism has any effect and you can't help in the 1st world.)
In both cases, it's abstracting from material circumstances into :zizek-preference:
I've run into so much of this.
I think the left as a whole needs to realize that a lot of our ideological differences are driven by people choosing ideologies that actually give them something actionable within their material conditions. The comfortable won't go off and start a people's war. The jobless won't unionize. Nobody wants to be led by an ML party with five members. It's harder to care about smashing the state if you live in an AES.
I think that a certain strain of third worldism is just a way for westerners to cope with doing fuck all to help any movement towards socialism other than post about how great China is to people who already agree with them.
The only possible thing I can think about is the difference between the composition of volunteers to both projects. Volunteers to the Spanish Republic commonly came from the organized Left where it was primarily parties of the COMINTERN would hold volunteer drives, fundraising events, anti-nationalist protests, etc. An example of this would be the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.
Whereas the volunteers to the Rojava Autonomous region are composed of the unorganized (or shattered) Left where it's primarily individuals that're volunteering, sending their own funds, and so forth.
I wouldn't really call it a critique since I don't really see it as one, but as an other observation of the status of the western left.