• archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    See, this is exactly what I mean by “I understand them so little that they must be the opposition in disguise”

    If you tried at all, youd understand that they’re position on “modern day Russia and China” is based on the idea of critical support. They evaluate policy decisions against “does this bring the working class closer to solidarity or not”.

    I.e. on the Ukraine war, their position is basically “U.S. Involvement in any war is a net-negative to worker solidarity in the country of question”. None there support Russia’s invasion, but they think Americas involvement spells the end of any socialist coalition to begin with.

    But again, “I understand them so little they must be a part of the opposition”. They have a different (definitively leftist) understanding of the war than you do. Doesn’t make them right-wing.

    • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They evaluate policy decisions against “does this bring the working class closer to solidarity or not”.

      When it comes to Russia bombing their cities and raping their women and children, is that positively or negatively influencing working class solidarity?

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Negatively.

        When it comes to supplying lethal aid to Ukraine to continue the war, though, they’d also say negatively.

        For the record I don’t agree, but that is their position and I understand it.

        • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, well when Hexbear hears that wives and daughters are being raped and says “giving Ukrainians weapons to help them defend their families from being raped is bad for worker solidarity”, it makes Hexbear look like a bunch of rape apologizists.

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure why people are surprised that a group largely made up of ML leftists would have a flippant attitude toward geopolitical violence.

            My main point is, still, that accusing them of being “right wing” just because you don’t understand their ideological stance is dumb.

            • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Basically the only difference between ML and the alt-right is that the alt-right wants violence against “libtards”, and ML’s want violence against “shitlibs”, while being insufferably snobby about pretending to be morally superior because they didn’t use an abliest slur.

              It’s like you just took a fascist and put them on a liberal’s moral high horse.

              • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Nah, I think what you mean is that’s the only relevant difference to you. Nevermind that MLs have a body of economic theory, if the most important detail about them is their willingness to use force then I think it’s fair to suggest your prevailing ideology isn’t socialism at all, it’s liberalism. Not that you can’t be socialist-leaning, but if the only difference you see between MLs and far-right conservatism is violence, then you seem blind to the thing that you have in common with them.

                • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m all for Marxism, but I haven’t observed the “body of economic theory” having any relevance, except as a snooby self-righteous justification for authoritarianism and violence.

                  Even if you were to strip all moral interpretation away, violence and authoritarianism is unstable and ineffective. ML’s in practice are fake progressives, because they don’t even care for finding a stable effective solution. The progression of society is no longer the point.

                  • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    From their perspective, all states (especially western liberal states) use violence to enforce their capitalistic order. “Authority” is broadly interpreted as ubiquitous, and all successful revolutions have been to some degree violent.

                    Not to suggest all authority and violence is the same, but to them, the liberal apprehension to utilize violence is a self-imposed handicap that not even their opposition undertakes.

                    Similar to leftists frustration with establishment Democrats from using their majority to enact progressive reform.

                    To them, the only distinction left is the economic structuring that violence is utilized on behalf of.

                    Again, not my personal position, but this “auth communists are the same as right wing authoritarians” is just willfully ignorant.

                • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  ** And take notice that while ML’s claim to not support Russia, they’ll often jump to Russia’s defense, despite Russia funding alt-right and neo-Nazi movements in America

                  • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Because to them, US/western capitalist hegemony is the global opposition to all socialist movements. That Russia is not a socialist state doesn’t change their desire to see western hegemony weakened to make possible broader socialist solidarity.