takes aren't even to the left of AES states or anticolonial movements; they're just more bloodthirsty and retributive. Time after time these groups say they are opposed to the U.S. government, not its people, or even make it possible for active U.S. troops in the fight to surrender/refuse to engage. In this specific fight you have an abundance of stories about Israeli captives being treated humanely.
Meanwhile, a branch of western leftists who are in nowhere near as dire of position demand mass death in the imperial core.
Someone posted here once that stridently calling for mass death and dressing like Nathan J. Robinson are both purely aesthetic choices for western leftists, and you'll never guess which one gets ripped on.
I hate to use the term "virtue signaling," but that's really what it comes down to.
Core to this place's identity is uncompromising support for violence against oppressors. That's a good thing, of course - history has shown us that violence or the threat thereof is the only way to stop them. Liberalism, to the extent that it acknowledges the structural violence of the oppressor at all, wrings its hands and falsely equivocates such violence with the liberatory violence of the oppressed. The Marx quote about "we shall not make excuses for the terror" comes to mind.
What some people do is take the very real truth of "to be meaningfully leftist, you have to be willing to support violence against oppressors" and decide that they can prove their leftist credentials by supporting the maximum possible violence against the broadest possible group that could fit under the "oppressor" label. This creates a culture of one-upsmanship where people try to gain clout and prove that they're the best leftist by ratcheting things up to ever-higher degrees, using the cudgel of "Oh, so you're against violence vs. oppressors now? Lib!" against anyone who points out the problem.
I suspect that a lot of the people doing this sort of thing aren't involved in any actual, meaningful real-life organizing. There was a writer (I don't remember who) that observed that, when concentration camp victims were given the chance to take revenge on their guards, many did so - but they did it in a perfunctory manner, like their heart wasn't really in it, that they were doing it simply because they'd spent so long dreaming of doing it. The writer's point was that revenge is a fantasy borne of helplessness, and by its nature loses a lot of its appeal once you're actually in a position to carry it out. Having organized in real life and won meaningful victories, I've noticed the same thing: you spend so much time thinking about what you'd like to do to this person or that person who's fighting tooth and nail to stop you from making the world a better place, but once you finally win, those feelings often, to a large degree, evaporate.
I'll close this off with two quotes. One from Harry Truman:
We have got to be tough with Germany, and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people or you have to treat them in such a manner so they can’t go on reproducing.
And one from Joseph Stalin:
It is very likely that the war for the liberation of the Soviet land will result in ousting or destroying Hitler’s clique. We should welcome such an outcome. But it would be ridiculous to identify Hitler’s clique with the German people and the German State. History shows that Hitlers come and go, but the German people and the German State remain. Lastly, the strength of the Red Army lies in the fact that it does not and cannot entertain racial hatred for other peoples, including the German people, that it has been brought up in the spirit of the equality of all peoples and races, in the spirit of respect for the rights of other peoples.
Between these people, who had more right to feel vengeful toward Germany? Who was the further left? Who does the crowd, who claim the title of "best leftists" and call those who disagree with them libs, sound more like?
The writer's point was that revenge is a fantasy borne of helplessness, and by its nature loses a lot of its appeal once you're actually in a position to carry it out.
See: Nelson Mandela. And not the liberal idealised peaceful grandpa version of him, but his armed struggle against apartheid from the beginning to when he became president.
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I'd still be in prison... Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies...You will achieve more in this world through acts of mercy than you will through acts of retribution”
Meanwhile, a branch of western leftists who are in nowhere near as dire of position demand mass death in the imperial core.
Someone posted here once that stridently calling for mass death and dressing like Nathan J. Robinson are both purely aesthetic choices for western leftists, and you'll never guess which one gets ripped on.
I hate to use the term "virtue signaling," but that's really what it comes down to.
Core to this place's identity is uncompromising support for violence against oppressors. That's a good thing, of course - history has shown us that violence or the threat thereof is the only way to stop them. Liberalism, to the extent that it acknowledges the structural violence of the oppressor at all, wrings its hands and falsely equivocates such violence with the liberatory violence of the oppressed. The Marx quote about "we shall not make excuses for the terror" comes to mind.
What some people do is take the very real truth of "to be meaningfully leftist, you have to be willing to support violence against oppressors" and decide that they can prove their leftist credentials by supporting the maximum possible violence against the broadest possible group that could fit under the "oppressor" label. This creates a culture of one-upsmanship where people try to gain clout and prove that they're the best leftist by ratcheting things up to ever-higher degrees, using the cudgel of "Oh, so you're against violence vs. oppressors now? Lib!" against anyone who points out the problem.
I suspect that a lot of the people doing this sort of thing aren't involved in any actual, meaningful real-life organizing. There was a writer (I don't remember who) that observed that, when concentration camp victims were given the chance to take revenge on their guards, many did so - but they did it in a perfunctory manner, like their heart wasn't really in it, that they were doing it simply because they'd spent so long dreaming of doing it. The writer's point was that revenge is a fantasy borne of helplessness, and by its nature loses a lot of its appeal once you're actually in a position to carry it out. Having organized in real life and won meaningful victories, I've noticed the same thing: you spend so much time thinking about what you'd like to do to this person or that person who's fighting tooth and nail to stop you from making the world a better place, but once you finally win, those feelings often, to a large degree, evaporate.
I'll close this off with two quotes. One from Harry Truman:
And one from Joseph Stalin:
Between these people, who had more right to feel vengeful toward Germany? Who was the further left? Who does the
crowd, who claim the title of "best leftists" and call those who disagree with them libs, sound more like?
What's that Stalin quote from?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1942/02/23.htm
Nvm found it. Uncle Joe was such a softie I'll never forgive libs for making him seem like an asshole without empathy.
It's from his Order of the Day on the 24th anniversary of the Red Army.
See: Nelson Mandela. And not the liberal idealised peaceful grandpa version of him, but his armed struggle against apartheid from the beginning to when he became president.
Very good post.