Damn website keeps eating my response so this isn't going to be as eloquent as it could be.
Saying this "isn't just tankie-anarkiddie infighting" while accusing every problem you mention on anarchists is disingenuous as hell.
You suggest that supporting Sanders over neolibs despite him supporting some imperialist projects is fine, but you're not okay with people criticising states on a small leftist forum with <5000 subscribers. This is completely oblivious to the amount of power at play in these two situations.
You suggest that you should never criticse a state that is the target of US imperialism (which is all of them, so never criticse a state other than the US I guess), while saying it's okay to have critical support, and singling out examples of exactly the sort of critical support you're likely to find on this website as being "okay." That is, you imply by making the argument that the types of criticism found on this website are bad, but the only option for good criticism you give is exactly the types of criticism found on this site, so there's no actual way to satisfy your position. This sort of mixing of contradictory instructions on different levels of abstraction is the format of a double bind, and it's really shitty way to argue.
while accusing every problem you mention on anarchists
The poster above mentions anarchists once - talking about 'the usual stances of American anarchists', which is not an attack on all anarchists - I think it's fair to say that you often see reddit anarchists "both sides" things, e.g. "Fuck both the US and the USSR! They were both evil!" I think that's a rather sophomoric view that deserves criticism, including from the anarchist perspective.
you’re not okay with people criticising states on a small leftist forum with <5000 subscribers
IMO that's a fair point, the CIA is not going to weaponize Chapo.Chat posts into an invasion of Venezuela. However, the same language you use in a small forum might easily carry over into what you say in a larger one. Solidifying the position you want to argue if everyone was listening makes sense to me.
so never criticse a state other than the US I guess
This is Chomsky quoting Sakharov ~ 'I criticize only my own country and ignore the crimes of other countries because I only have influence on my own country.' When you attack US enemies you're only doing the job of the State Department. This doesn't mean not CRITIQUING other countries, but don't effectively join a smear campaign against other countries.
This is heavily semantic and the boundary is going to be different in everyone's head. I don't think it's an effective line to draw.
"I only have influence on my own country"
This informs the purpose of the discussion. If I say China's worker protections are lacking, it is a given that I'm not influencing China. It's also a given that I'm not influencing the US state department, because they're not listening to me (and also they think lacking worker protections are a good thing). Who then is the audience? Other leftists in my own country, seeking to build their own socialist movement. The question is what's worth copying.
Damn website keeps eating my response so this isn't going to be as eloquent as it could be.
Saying this "isn't just tankie-anarkiddie infighting" while accusing every problem you mention on anarchists is disingenuous as hell.
You suggest that supporting Sanders over neolibs despite him supporting some imperialist projects is fine, but you're not okay with people criticising states on a small leftist forum with <5000 subscribers. This is completely oblivious to the amount of power at play in these two situations.
You suggest that you should never criticse a state that is the target of US imperialism (which is all of them, so never criticse a state other than the US I guess), while saying it's okay to have critical support, and singling out examples of exactly the sort of critical support you're likely to find on this website as being "okay." That is, you imply by making the argument that the types of criticism found on this website are bad, but the only option for good criticism you give is exactly the types of criticism found on this site, so there's no actual way to satisfy your position. This sort of mixing of contradictory instructions on different levels of abstraction is the format of a double bind, and it's really shitty way to argue.
The poster above mentions anarchists once - talking about 'the usual stances of American anarchists', which is not an attack on all anarchists - I think it's fair to say that you often see reddit anarchists "both sides" things, e.g. "Fuck both the US and the USSR! They were both evil!" I think that's a rather sophomoric view that deserves criticism, including from the anarchist perspective.
IMO that's a fair point, the CIA is not going to weaponize Chapo.Chat posts into an invasion of Venezuela. However, the same language you use in a small forum might easily carry over into what you say in a larger one. Solidifying the position you want to argue if everyone was listening makes sense to me.
This is Chomsky quoting Sakharov ~ 'I criticize only my own country and ignore the crimes of other countries because I only have influence on my own country.' When you attack US enemies you're only doing the job of the State Department. This doesn't mean not CRITIQUING other countries, but don't effectively join a smear campaign against other countries.
Also consider the thread context. But fair point.
This is heavily semantic and the boundary is going to be different in everyone's head. I don't think it's an effective line to draw.
This informs the purpose of the discussion. If I say China's worker protections are lacking, it is a given that I'm not influencing China. It's also a given that I'm not influencing the US state department, because they're not listening to me (and also they think lacking worker protections are a good thing). Who then is the audience? Other leftists in my own country, seeking to build their own socialist movement. The question is what's worth copying.