Roger Waters is very dumb but dumb people tend to like him because he says some things they like. So what happens when he 'debates' an even dumber liberal on...
Roger Waters - Comfortably Numb, Bad Empanada - Confident and Dumb
Roger Waters is very dumb but dumb people tend to like him because he says some things they like. So what happens when he 'debates' an even dumber liberal on CNN?
Waters is at least as smart and informed as the average political YouTuber/streamer, if not more so (it's not a very high bar). The difference is that his comments here were made off-the-cuff during a real conversation, and not a scripted twenty minute video where he could inject tons of nuance and hedge all of his statements to be as precise and factually bulletproof as possible. He also had to couch all of his statements to not be too aggressive to the interviewer, because part of Waters' job is literally doing interviews and if he gets a reputation for being a huge asshole that could jeopardize it.
Like imagine if an argument you had with a lib family member got posted online and everyone started picking every little thing you said apart. Of course you're not making your best arguments in the heat of the moment, and of course you're not going to go completely for broke and potentially burn your bridge with that person forever. But now everyone thinks your dumb because instead of carefully explaining your points all the way through every single time, you just said the most important parts and then stopped to let the other person speak for a bit.
Anyway I watched the video and I'm not impressed. Generally I like BE but he's definitely got ultra tendencies and drama tendencies, neither of which I'm a fan of.
"You internet freak, get out of here with your concern for socialism as a project that has existed and does exist in the real world! Only non-existent socialism for me, please!"
You're allowed to think whatever you want. In that regard, be a Rapture-obsessed Evangelical for all I care. Be a Neonazi Zionist. Be whatever Haz is.
But it's an entirely different question if this website should be a platform for declaring the illegitimacy of AES states, which I side with the community in saying is completely counter-productive. At that point, just go to like an anarchist subreddit or something and you can do your social credit score memes there to your heart's content.
I literally don't care about Russia, I don't think it's good, and I don't critically support them, I however do not support any western intervention either. I do as far as what the phrase is worth critically support China though lol, I hope they are able to bring about world socialism, but I prefer other factions in the government to Xi personally, and I just don't like the term AES bc it's trying to gatekeep what counts as socialism not that the states are somehow evil.
Russia is not AES. It's part of the anti-imperialist bloc, but that doesn't make it socialist at all and literally no one here would assert that it is. Not caring about Russia but also opposing western intervention is a perfectly fine position. Viewing Putin as a mafioso and Russia as a plutocracy (like all liberal democracies) that is only a member of the new eastern bloc for opportunistic reasons is likewise perfectly compatible.
AES doesn't gatekeep what counts as socialism any more than reality does. Little anarchist communes are also AES, they are just politically unimportant most of the time (beyond their local communities) by their very nature, though historically there have been important ones and there may be more in the future.
"AES" is used to distinguish between supporting socialism as a living project and supporting "socialism" as something that "has never been tried" and only exists in the (imagined) future.
the term literally wasn't though, look into it's original derivation, it was made by the Breznev government (originally called real socialism) to quash criticism in the eastern bloc for people who started wondering whether Mao's system might be a better approach for them who disagreed with self evidently revisionist policies, you may use it that way, but the reason it was invented was to gatekeep definitions of socialism so the only real socialism was the :ussr-cry: specfically after Stalin USSR
Today it is also used to describe SWCC, whatever we might say about that historical usage. If you go look somewhere like GZD, which you identified as aligning with AES spaces, they do use the term for the Mao-era PRC as well as many other places like Cuba and Vietnam.
supporting “socialism” as something that “has never been tried” and only exists in the (imagined) future
this is literally untrue you just have never looked up the original usage, the textbook definition would not apply to any anarchist commune or maoist insurgency or whatever else
There are no leaders of factions besides Xi publicly, that is the point, multiple people who publicly identified as this were persecuted, so there is a reason there isn't a public leader ...
people like Bo Xilai, Yue Xin, many other student activists in solidarity of the Jasic workers or otherwise, there's a reason :zizek-preference: boycotts Chinese academia bc of the suppression of Marxists who don't toe party line
It’s funny bc earlier we had the patsoc hiding behind sectarianism to defend their reactionary ideology and you’re using it as an excuse to stop criticism of people with generally chauvinist takes. We are anti-sectarian but we are more broadly pro-aes and the non-ml comrades here generally have been cool and in favor of that as well. Hell we had a Reddit style anarchist here a while back and tons of our own anarchists called them libs for their well, lib views tbh.
We’ve litigated this here before and I don’t think allowing all ideologies for some ideal of non-sectarianism is a good thing when they conflict with more important ideals like solidarity with aes and 3rd world comrades or a belief in revolutionary over reformist politics which we generally have. I wouldn’t want to see the site diluted to welcome twitter/Reddit style socialists and socdems in the name of non-sectarianism. Critiquing why those ideologies have historically and continue this day to fold or capitulate to capital is more important
I literally just want to not see the words ultra or anarkiddy on this website, I don’t expect people to change their views, there are clearly other places for that
Anarkiddie I get but ultras have literally always broadly been critiqued by virtually the whole of the left. It’s basically no different than critique liberals especially when what they’re espousing is state dept serving (indirectly or otherwise) chauvinism.
it is a short hand for being sectarian against maoists mzt hoxhaists and anti revisonists left comma anarchists specifically it is used specifically for those tendencies when people say it,
I'm confused. Are we using this to refer specifically to Deng-era ideology and up to before Xi? The way I see it discussed, Xi is held in high regard mainly as a leader and XJT is seen as a relatively small addition to MZT overall, and the only people who would claim to be MZT but specifically not XJT are weird imperial periphery neoliberals who I know exist in China but I have literally never seen in one of these online spaces.
I’m am talking about the current party, do you not know there are multiple factions in it… there are people you want to not take the course of Xi and revert to Mao era policies, it’s not just a consensus, there’s like 10 factions …
As far as I know, people concerned with implementing Mao era policies would be more accurately described as Maoists, since MZT would be more accurately described as accounting for Mao's theoretical contributions and a small portion of his policies but not really the bulk of them (and also a bit of a patina for Deng's right-deviation).
MLM groups identified as MZT before Gonzalo, it probably has more than one definition, I meant in the maoist way, but some people mean only MLM when they say maoists, it's confusing
I mean in some cases maybe, but maoists don’t exactly have the best track record and could probably do with some critiquing.
Mzt is generally pretty popular here so it’s definitely not that
And honestly calling everyone that doesn’t follow a prescribed ultra doctrine “revisionist” (i.e. actually responding to the material conditions which is a fundamental part of Marxism) and yourself anti-revisionist is kinda sectarian in itself lol
I for one have never called anyone here or anyone else not here a revionist or tankie or whatever other dunk/own, or even wanted to, it’s really not that hard
Again I don’t think tolerating anti-aes and chauvinist views is worth the moral superiority of being “anti-sectarian” this is basically the tolerance paradox for socialists. All the solidarity to socialists of all stripes but I don’t think allowing chauvinist elements into the broad left is good and they should be critiqued and spoken out against
You have to agree with the premise it was chauvinist, and that is for sure up for debate, unless you’re the authority on what is chauvinist, if the other posters above decided on that this would literally just be GZD
Yeah I believe this is what the kids call “having a take.” Chauvinism in general is complicated subject and obviously there’s gonna be different pov. Chasing some kind of universal agreeance is fruitless and kinda lib tbh and gutless fence sitting. Generally it’s taken to mean supporting western imperialist nations bc of taking their view on something as the default. And that is generally to me, not worth allowing in the space.
We can have a lot of arguments about whether you and I are correct but that we can debate it doesn’t justify tolerating it. We can debate all kinds of shit that we generally take to be bad. Should we allow pro-landlord takes here bc whether it’s bad or good is “up for debate”? Certainly you and I aren’t the arbiter of what is universally true in any circumstance.
I agree, I just think tossing arounds ultras to people the left of you you don’t like is just as childish and dumb as libs throwing around tankies to people to the left of them they don’t like and should be pushed back on
I think there’s a lot of supposition in whether or not that counts as “to the left of you.” If you end up supporting imperialist nations against aes idk how “left” that really is and I think that’s why it worthy of critique
That said I mean we’re gonna call them something right? Like whatever we name them is gonna be interpreted as a pejorative when we consistently use it to critique them. You could be having this exact convo with me but change out the word for chauvinist for example. I really don’t see the point in running so much defense for a group especially if you agree that chauvinist takes are bad.
People are to the left and right of each other and that's okay most people would agree left to right mao, xi, deng and that would not cause debate so why would people using a word to make fun of someone who prefers mao politics over xi politics not punching left ...
there really isn't a debate that using the word ultra would be targeting someone to the left of you, leftism does not automatically equate to good or practical or whatever ascribed values, but it is still more to the left
you do not have not support imperialist nations, by not critically supporting x country, you can firmly oppose western invention and imperialism and don't have to give props to a state that is in many other ways abhorrent ...
Lol I mean at this level that’s just cringe polcomp type shit. Politics does t exist on a flat plane. It’s really just an ultra view to say ok actually anything that isn’t particularly my interpretation of Marx is to the right of me. Everyone else was busy building something, incl non marxists to be honest. People exist all over the place wrt to interpretations of socialism, liberalism, whatever
But whatever you consider yourself, and wherever you see yourself on an imaginary plane, if your ideology consistently leads you to side with imperialist nations (sometimes no for some but generally often) and keeps you from seeing a country that lifted countless people out of poverty, has been basically the sole country to make the general gains against poverty in the last half decade and if you take them out it completely falls apart, is the only country that consistently holds capital accountable to the law and not above it, amongst millions of other advancements, or take the responses to conditions placed upon them by the imperialist west in dprk and other countries cases as universally bad and exempts them from being socialist bc you’re too caught up in believing imperialist nonsense, than that ideology should be unwelcome
Again I’m fine with literally all stripes of socialism. I don’t agree with my anarchists comrades on stuff but I think there’s utility in their views. I specifically don’t think chauvinism and the inherent defeatism of ultras on one end, or the radlib western leftists that won’t support anything outside of the imperial core on the other is worth having in and is frankly detrimental to the movement. Tbh it shouldn’t be a big bar to cross for leftists
I never said I didn't critically support China ... you inferred that, I literally would just prefer different kinds of leadership and those people do exist ... they are just more marginal than the ones you support so you are by default right bc you agree more closely with the faction in power, would you accuse a maoist in the government in China as not supporting China bc they don't agree with XJP on a theoretical basis, I guess they're just a chauvinist defeatist ultra radlib western leftist
I’m not talking about you or anything about your ideology specifically at all, I’m talking about ultras and “radlibs” getting called ultras for broadly not supporting aes and often falling into the trap of supporting imperialist nations bc that’s what we’ve been talking about up to this point.
fair enough, it's inherently sectarian though, virtually everyone who is not just a textbook ML, is basically an ultra in that definition especially if you don't inclide the "often" part bc in this community that almost never happens here, I'm sure it does on twitter and reddit
A lot of our non-ml comrades seem to handle it fine. :shrug-outta-hecks: and just bc it’s common to fall for people in imperial nations to fall for imperialist dogma doesn’t mean it can’t be regarded as a bad thing.
It’s honestly to be expected that that should be the case, that’s why it has to be critiqued and talked about. Most white People aren’t gonna understand intuitively how their white identity privileges them in societies built on white supremacy, you generally have to have a dialogue about it. I think it functions similarly, we are by default gonna probably side with countries we’re familiar with especially over ones that we grew up being taught to revile that do all these awful things allegedly. That’s the self sustaining propaganda of imperialism at work.
I can’t speak for everyone but to me, ultimately it’s just a good line for building solidarity with aes countries and looking to models that are working in the real world we could take and apply to our own conditions. We have to have some values on things, we’re all choosing what not to have and what to have. We generally would agree here that wage theft by capitalists is bad for example but might get some push back in spaces where they don’t agree.
I don’t think these are inherently bad takes to have spread through leftist movements in the west, would go a long way to undoing and combatting imperialist brainworms, and I’ve seen plenty of non-ml comrades incorporate them into their thinking so I don’t think that “seek to be non chauvinist, and critically support aes” is inherently at odds with non-mls or is a wholly ml-only view to take.
can’t speak for everyone but to me, ultimately it’s just a good line for building solidarity with aes countries and looking to models that are working in the real world we could take and apply to our own conditions. We have to have some values on things, we’re all choosing what not to have and what to have. We generally would agree here that wage theft by capitalists is bad for example but might get some push back in spaces where they don’t agree.
it is a good thing
I think that is well and good, I don't think ML in this vein of thought are bad or wrong, I think they are comrades and it's just a small difference of opinion, and I just think it would be nice to not just fire off a term people use regularly on other sectarian forums as a way to dismiss things you don't agree with in a complete bad faith way, like 99% of the usage of ultras is here
telling a user who has been here since the beginning of the site that they would be happier on some other forum while you are being collectively dunked on by dozens of other old heads is a real move for a two month old account
You asked if you could dunk on rad libs when referring to a socialist / communist content creator, he is not an ML who upholds AES so therefore he is radlib, that is your point, and it’s the definition of sectarinaism
I'm not referring to BE. I'm asking you if dunking on radlibs is sectarian. Not if dunking on BE is sectarian. Is dunking on radlibs sectarian? This is a yes or no question and it does not relate to BE, who is being described as an Ultra, which is not a radlib.
yes it's okay to dunk on "radlibs" I would prefer a full definition on what radlib is considered to be tho, which you didn’t give me when I asked you multiple times, I'm sorry I was replying to like 5 people at once I got a bit mixed up
luv too avoid answering a question over a half dozen replies then passive aggressively imply that the person asking me a direct question isn't being comradely
you're very funny, actually, you spend half of your posting time in this website ''side-venting'' and shitting about every tendency you don't like by calling them ''sectarian'' or whatever it is this month, posting months-old threads and random comments from an extremely more niche, smaller website and basically implying it as proof that every person belonging to that tendecy ''are the REAL sectarians!''. overall being a smug rose-twitter liberal. I'd say you're the only one being sectarian here.
Certain tendency-specific words are as far as I can tell tolerated to use like Ultra or Statist as long as it isnt used in a direct hostile manner to someone on the site.
I feel like that would change quick if people just started posting about “chauvinist tankies” instead of chauvinist ultras, and it is inherently hostile
Waters is at least as smart and informed as the average political YouTuber/streamer, if not more so (it's not a very high bar). The difference is that his comments here were made off-the-cuff during a real conversation, and not a scripted twenty minute video where he could inject tons of nuance and hedge all of his statements to be as precise and factually bulletproof as possible. He also had to couch all of his statements to not be too aggressive to the interviewer, because part of Waters' job is literally doing interviews and if he gets a reputation for being a huge asshole that could jeopardize it.
Like imagine if an argument you had with a lib family member got posted online and everyone started picking every little thing you said apart. Of course you're not making your best arguments in the heat of the moment, and of course you're not going to go completely for broke and potentially burn your bridge with that person forever. But now everyone thinks your dumb because instead of carefully explaining your points all the way through every single time, you just said the most important parts and then stopped to let the other person speak for a bit.
Anyway I watched the video and I'm not impressed. Generally I like BE but he's definitely got ultra tendencies and drama tendencies, neither of which I'm a fan of.
CW hostile, I'm sorry
go back to your ML only spaces
you must be new here.
CW hostile, I'm sorry
the site is non sectarian leave please
Saying that you don't like a particular person's tendencies is not sectarian.
using the word ultra is in fact sectarian, that’s the whole point of the word
Lol
is dunking on radlibs sectarian?
using the word ultras is, it belongs on GZD and other just ML AES spaces
"You internet freak, get out of here with your concern for socialism as a project that has existed and does exist in the real world! Only non-existent socialism for me, please!"
CW mildy hostile, I'm sorry
I think you should be allowed to think that and also hear me out there not think that
You're allowed to think whatever you want. In that regard, be a Rapture-obsessed Evangelical for all I care. Be a Neonazi Zionist. Be whatever Haz is.
But it's an entirely different question if this website should be a platform for declaring the illegitimacy of AES states, which I side with the community in saying is completely counter-productive. At that point, just go to like an anarchist subreddit or something and you can do your social credit score memes there to your heart's content.
I literally don't care about Russia, I don't think it's good, and I don't critically support them, I however do not support any western intervention either. I do as far as what the phrase is worth critically support China though lol, I hope they are able to bring about world socialism, but I prefer other factions in the government to Xi personally, and I just don't like the term AES bc it's trying to gatekeep what counts as socialism not that the states are somehow evil.
Russia is not AES. It's part of the anti-imperialist bloc, but that doesn't make it socialist at all and literally no one here would assert that it is. Not caring about Russia but also opposing western intervention is a perfectly fine position. Viewing Putin as a mafioso and Russia as a plutocracy (like all liberal democracies) that is only a member of the new eastern bloc for opportunistic reasons is likewise perfectly compatible.
AES doesn't gatekeep what counts as socialism any more than reality does. Little anarchist communes are also AES, they are just politically unimportant most of the time (beyond their local communities) by their very nature, though historically there have been important ones and there may be more in the future.
"AES" is used to distinguish between supporting socialism as a living project and supporting "socialism" as something that "has never been tried" and only exists in the (imagined) future.
the term literally wasn't though, look into it's original derivation, it was made by the Breznev government (originally called real socialism) to quash criticism in the eastern bloc for people who started wondering whether Mao's system might be a better approach for them who disagreed with self evidently revisionist policies, you may use it that way, but the reason it was invented was to gatekeep definitions of socialism so the only real socialism was the :ussr-cry: specfically after Stalin USSR
Today it is also used to describe SWCC, whatever we might say about that historical usage. If you go look somewhere like GZD, which you identified as aligning with AES spaces, they do use the term for the Mao-era PRC as well as many other places like Cuba and Vietnam.
CW mildy hostile, I'm sorry
this is literally untrue you just have never looked up the original usage, the textbook definition would not apply to any anarchist commune or maoist insurgency or whatever else
deleted by creator
the traditional marxists (there are different terms for the same thing I'm sure)
deleted by creator
There are no leaders of factions besides Xi publicly, that is the point, multiple people who publicly identified as this were persecuted, so there is a reason there isn't a public leader ...
deleted by creator
people like Bo Xilai, Yue Xin, many other student activists in solidarity of the Jasic workers or otherwise, there's a reason :zizek-preference: boycotts Chinese academia bc of the suppression of Marxists who don't toe party line
is dunking on radlibs sectarian?
you are sectarian
this isn't a hard question to answer, and I'm pretty sure asking it isn't sectarian
it is sectarian when you choose a tendency you don’t agree with it label it radlib and say can’t we dunk on them
It’s funny bc earlier we had the patsoc hiding behind sectarianism to defend their reactionary ideology and you’re using it as an excuse to stop criticism of people with generally chauvinist takes. We are anti-sectarian but we are more broadly pro-aes and the non-ml comrades here generally have been cool and in favor of that as well. Hell we had a Reddit style anarchist here a while back and tons of our own anarchists called them libs for their well, lib views tbh.
We’ve litigated this here before and I don’t think allowing all ideologies for some ideal of non-sectarianism is a good thing when they conflict with more important ideals like solidarity with aes and 3rd world comrades or a belief in revolutionary over reformist politics which we generally have. I wouldn’t want to see the site diluted to welcome twitter/Reddit style socialists and socdems in the name of non-sectarianism. Critiquing why those ideologies have historically and continue this day to fold or capitulate to capital is more important
I literally just want to not see the words ultra or anarkiddy on this website, I don’t expect people to change their views, there are clearly other places for that
Anarkiddie I get but ultras have literally always broadly been critiqued by virtually the whole of the left. It’s basically no different than critique liberals especially when what they’re espousing is state dept serving (indirectly or otherwise) chauvinism.
it is a short hand for being sectarian against maoists mzt hoxhaists and anti revisonists left comma anarchists specifically it is used specifically for those tendencies when people say it,
Not at all. The PRC is (or claims to be, since you might contest it) MZT.
I meant mzt as in the ideology in the Cpc you can call traditional marxists as opposed to innovative marxism or XJP thought
I'm confused. Are we using this to refer specifically to Deng-era ideology and up to before Xi? The way I see it discussed, Xi is held in high regard mainly as a leader and XJT is seen as a relatively small addition to MZT overall, and the only people who would claim to be MZT but specifically not XJT are weird imperial periphery neoliberals who I know exist in China but I have literally never seen in one of these online spaces.
I’m am talking about the current party, do you not know there are multiple factions in it… there are people you want to not take the course of Xi and revert to Mao era policies, it’s not just a consensus, there’s like 10 factions …
As far as I know, people concerned with implementing Mao era policies would be more accurately described as Maoists, since MZT would be more accurately described as accounting for Mao's theoretical contributions and a small portion of his policies but not really the bulk of them (and also a bit of a patina for Deng's right-deviation).
MLM groups identified as MZT before Gonzalo, it probably has more than one definition, I meant in the maoist way, but some people mean only MLM when they say maoists, it's confusing
Alright, fair enough
I mean in some cases maybe, but maoists don’t exactly have the best track record and could probably do with some critiquing.
Mzt is generally pretty popular here so it’s definitely not that
And honestly calling everyone that doesn’t follow a prescribed ultra doctrine “revisionist” (i.e. actually responding to the material conditions which is a fundamental part of Marxism) and yourself anti-revisionist is kinda sectarian in itself lol
I for one have never called anyone here or anyone else not here a revionist or tankie or whatever other dunk/own, or even wanted to, it’s really not that hard
Again I don’t think tolerating anti-aes and chauvinist views is worth the moral superiority of being “anti-sectarian” this is basically the tolerance paradox for socialists. All the solidarity to socialists of all stripes but I don’t think allowing chauvinist elements into the broad left is good and they should be critiqued and spoken out against
You have to agree with the premise it was chauvinist, and that is for sure up for debate, unless you’re the authority on what is chauvinist, if the other posters above decided on that this would literally just be GZD
didn’t critically support chauvinist
didn’t call China socialist chauvinist
etc etc
Yeah I believe this is what the kids call “having a take.” Chauvinism in general is complicated subject and obviously there’s gonna be different pov. Chasing some kind of universal agreeance is fruitless and kinda lib tbh and gutless fence sitting. Generally it’s taken to mean supporting western imperialist nations bc of taking their view on something as the default. And that is generally to me, not worth allowing in the space.
We can have a lot of arguments about whether you and I are correct but that we can debate it doesn’t justify tolerating it. We can debate all kinds of shit that we generally take to be bad. Should we allow pro-landlord takes here bc whether it’s bad or good is “up for debate”? Certainly you and I aren’t the arbiter of what is universally true in any circumstance.
I agree, I just think tossing arounds ultras to people the left of you you don’t like is just as childish and dumb as libs throwing around tankies to people to the left of them they don’t like and should be pushed back on
I think there’s a lot of supposition in whether or not that counts as “to the left of you.” If you end up supporting imperialist nations against aes idk how “left” that really is and I think that’s why it worthy of critique
That said I mean we’re gonna call them something right? Like whatever we name them is gonna be interpreted as a pejorative when we consistently use it to critique them. You could be having this exact convo with me but change out the word for chauvinist for example. I really don’t see the point in running so much defense for a group especially if you agree that chauvinist takes are bad.
People are to the left and right of each other and that's okay most people would agree left to right mao, xi, deng and that would not cause debate so why would people using a word to make fun of someone who prefers mao politics over xi politics not punching left ... there really isn't a debate that using the word ultra would be targeting someone to the left of you, leftism does not automatically equate to good or practical or whatever ascribed values, but it is still more to the left
you do not have not support imperialist nations, by not critically supporting x country, you can firmly oppose western invention and imperialism and don't have to give props to a state that is in many other ways abhorrent ...
Lol I mean at this level that’s just cringe polcomp type shit. Politics does t exist on a flat plane. It’s really just an ultra view to say ok actually anything that isn’t particularly my interpretation of Marx is to the right of me. Everyone else was busy building something, incl non marxists to be honest. People exist all over the place wrt to interpretations of socialism, liberalism, whatever
But whatever you consider yourself, and wherever you see yourself on an imaginary plane, if your ideology consistently leads you to side with imperialist nations (sometimes no for some but generally often) and keeps you from seeing a country that lifted countless people out of poverty, has been basically the sole country to make the general gains against poverty in the last half decade and if you take them out it completely falls apart, is the only country that consistently holds capital accountable to the law and not above it, amongst millions of other advancements, or take the responses to conditions placed upon them by the imperialist west in dprk and other countries cases as universally bad and exempts them from being socialist bc you’re too caught up in believing imperialist nonsense, than that ideology should be unwelcome
CW hostile, but I also had no clue what they were saying, I'm sorry
???
Ultras bad
CW hostile, I'm sorry
that's okay for you to believe, I think you would be happier in a place with less diversity of opinion
Again I’m fine with literally all stripes of socialism. I don’t agree with my anarchists comrades on stuff but I think there’s utility in their views. I specifically don’t think chauvinism and the inherent defeatism of ultras on one end, or the radlib western leftists that won’t support anything outside of the imperial core on the other is worth having in and is frankly detrimental to the movement. Tbh it shouldn’t be a big bar to cross for leftists
CW midly hostile, I'm sorry
I never said I didn't critically support China ... you inferred that, I literally would just prefer different kinds of leadership and those people do exist ... they are just more marginal than the ones you support so you are by default right bc you agree more closely with the faction in power, would you accuse a maoist in the government in China as not supporting China bc they don't agree with XJP on a theoretical basis, I guess they're just a chauvinist defeatist ultra radlib western leftist
I’m not talking about you or anything about your ideology specifically at all, I’m talking about ultras and “radlibs” getting called ultras for broadly not supporting aes and often falling into the trap of supporting imperialist nations bc that’s what we’ve been talking about up to this point.
fair enough, it's inherently sectarian though, virtually everyone who is not just a textbook ML, is basically an ultra in that definition especially if you don't inclide the "often" part bc in this community that almost never happens here, I'm sure it does on twitter and reddit
A lot of our non-ml comrades seem to handle it fine. :shrug-outta-hecks: and just bc it’s common to fall for people in imperial nations to fall for imperialist dogma doesn’t mean it can’t be regarded as a bad thing.
It’s honestly to be expected that that should be the case, that’s why it has to be critiqued and talked about. Most white People aren’t gonna understand intuitively how their white identity privileges them in societies built on white supremacy, you generally have to have a dialogue about it. I think it functions similarly, we are by default gonna probably side with countries we’re familiar with especially over ones that we grew up being taught to revile that do all these awful things allegedly. That’s the self sustaining propaganda of imperialism at work.
I can’t speak for everyone but to me, ultimately it’s just a good line for building solidarity with aes countries and looking to models that are working in the real world we could take and apply to our own conditions. We have to have some values on things, we’re all choosing what not to have and what to have. We generally would agree here that wage theft by capitalists is bad for example but might get some push back in spaces where they don’t agree.
I don’t think these are inherently bad takes to have spread through leftist movements in the west, would go a long way to undoing and combatting imperialist brainworms, and I’ve seen plenty of non-ml comrades incorporate them into their thinking so I don’t think that “seek to be non chauvinist, and critically support aes” is inherently at odds with non-mls or is a wholly ml-only view to take.
it is a good thing
I think that is well and good, I don't think ML in this vein of thought are bad or wrong, I think they are comrades and it's just a small difference of opinion, and I just think it would be nice to not just fire off a term people use regularly on other sectarian forums as a way to dismiss things you don't agree with in a complete bad faith way, like 99% of the usage of ultras is here
telling a user who has been here since the beginning of the site that they would be happier on some other forum while you are being collectively dunked on by dozens of other old heads is a real move for a two month old account
CW hostile, I'm sorry
you are hostile and unpleasant
That's not what I asked and you know it, if you truly believe the things you believe answering this question should be dead simple with a yes or no
You asked if you could dunk on rad libs when referring to a socialist / communist content creator, he is not an ML who upholds AES so therefore he is radlib, that is your point, and it’s the definition of sectarinaism
I'm not referring to BE. I'm asking you if dunking on radlibs is sectarian. Not if dunking on BE is sectarian. Is dunking on radlibs sectarian? This is a yes or no question and it does not relate to BE, who is being described as an Ultra, which is not a radlib.
It depends on who the radlib is, if you call other leftists radlibs then it is.
so that's a no, you're not willing to answer a simple, direct question directly. cool stuff, glad to have reddited with you good sir
dunking on radlibs is fine, I would never use the word radlib, but idk what you want
literally just the yes or no answer to the question this entire exchange started with, which is why you seem so suspect
yes it's okay to dunk on "radlibs" I would prefer a full definition on what radlib is considered to be tho, which you didn’t give me when I asked you multiple times, I'm sorry I was replying to like 5 people at once I got a bit mixed up
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
thanks comrade :stalin-heart:
luv too avoid answering a question over a half dozen replies then passive aggressively imply that the person asking me a direct question isn't being comradely
definitely not wrecker shit
okay sure, well I apologize now if you'll have it
Removed by mod
you're very funny, actually, you spend half of your posting time in this website ''side-venting'' and shitting about every tendency you don't like by calling them ''sectarian'' or whatever it is this month, posting months-old threads and random comments from an extremely more niche, smaller website and basically implying it as proof that every person belonging to that tendecy ''are the REAL sectarians!''. overall being a smug rose-twitter liberal. I'd say you're the only one being sectarian here.
in the end all i can say is lmao.
CW hostile, but I don't think I'm sorry for this one, I'm pretty sure this comment was extremely rude
you’re clearly really invested in me, mad or something?
lmao
Certain tendency-specific words are as far as I can tell tolerated to use like Ultra or Statist as long as it isnt used in a direct hostile manner to someone on the site.
I feel like that would change quick if people just started posting about “chauvinist tankies” instead of chauvinist ultras, and it is inherently hostile
It's actually "nonsectarian" as in "nine sects" are allowed. 8 of them ML offshoots and one is anarcho-communism.
:theory-gary: