On The Jacobin Show, Amber Frost offers a critique of some of the intellectual arguments for mutual aid, debunks the myth that the Black Panther Party's free...
Infighting is so common and so destructive that we shouldn't be taking shit about each other at all unless you can point to something more specific than "I think they said something like that a while ago." If we treat each other like we treat chuds we're getting nowhere.
Grousing about someone's shitty take is not "infighting", it is a reminder that someone isn't automatically a good take machine just because they like communism. Amber literally does not know or care who I am, and vice versa.
I mean, the take was "people do Food Not Bombs after they lose, because they failed to bring about mass revolutionary change", which is not exactly a far cry from "Food Not Bombs is for losers".
That's entirely different from "FNB is for losers."
"X is for losers" means if you do X, you're a loser. You suck. I'm laughing at you and your pathetic hobby. "People do X when they fail to bring about their primary goal" means X is a backup plan, or an attempt to at least do something good when you can't accomplish a comprehensive solution. Someone who tries, fails, and tries something else is looked at far more positively than a loser.
This is why we shouldn't paraphrase critiques of other leftists. Look at the PSL article on dual power quoted elsewhere in this thread -- see how they critique other leftists.
Infighting is so common and so destructive that we shouldn't be taking shit about each other at all unless you can point to something more specific than "I think they said something like that a while ago." If we treat each other like we treat chuds we're getting nowhere.
Grousing about someone's shitty take is not "infighting", it is a reminder that someone isn't automatically a good take machine just because they like communism. Amber literally does not know or care who I am, and vice versa.
It's easy: criticize someone's take all you want, but give the actual take itself, not some third-hand recollection of it.
I mean, the take was "people do Food Not Bombs after they lose, because they failed to bring about mass revolutionary change", which is not exactly a far cry from "Food Not Bombs is for losers".
That's entirely different from "FNB is for losers."
"X is for losers" means if you do X, you're a loser. You suck. I'm laughing at you and your pathetic hobby. "People do X when they fail to bring about their primary goal" means X is a backup plan, or an attempt to at least do something good when you can't accomplish a comprehensive solution. Someone who tries, fails, and tries something else is looked at far more positively than a loser.
This is why we shouldn't paraphrase critiques of other leftists. Look at the PSL article on dual power quoted elsewhere in this thread -- see how they critique other leftists.
deleted by creator
:af-heart:
We probably agree on more than we realize.
Amber.