Petrol posted:Who is this person that wrote this trash lol
Sukhant is a community organiser from London.
He is good but likes to argue a lot
The Malcolm x movement is his thing as Henry said
Gibbonstrength posted:I've been thinking lately about how liberals think about other countries and other people and the deep chauvinism ingrained in their thinking. Getfiscal made me think about how silly it is to criticise other countries for how people have arranged their society - like who the hell are we to storm in and tell Venezuelans they've got it all wrong, or the Chinese or (on topic) the Syrians. Like, you poor people, if only you could rise up and get rid of that nasty dictator you could start to be free. It seems like the basis of this belief is the deeper belief that every other country is just an incomplete version of our own. Like China's only way forward is to see their folly and "liberalise". Syria can only advance by "opening up" or whatever. Your average crossword-doer listening to the public broadcaster in Australia probably holds these beliefs totally unexamined and won't hesitate to express them.
you could say the same about any movement to change a society
"who are you to come tell us we can't hold slaves"
of course it's just two sets of values clashing with one another, doesn't make either of them "correct", and it doesn't make either of them more or less correct for being in another country to you
we push for changes anyway, and we should. we just need to make sure the changes we push for are good and helpful
Panopticon posted:of course it's just two sets of values clashing with one another, doesn't make either of them "correct", and it doesn't make either of them more or less correct for being in another country to you
we push for changes anyway, and we should. we just need to make sure the changes we push for are good and helpful
wow, interesting, tell me more about the clash of civilizations with the strange customs and alien values of the exotic orient
As a capitalist country, we are nothing, (worse than nothing) because capitalism entails a certain amount of slavery, and we would only make things worse with intervention. As communists, we can absolutely tell people that they can't own slaves, that's the whole point I thought. Establishing boundaries/eradication of private ownership and exploitation. Also community toothbrushes.
Themselves posted:As communists, we can absolutely tell people that they can't own slaves
where does this come from, what allows communists to say this
Panopticon posted:Themselves posted:As communists, we can absolutely tell people that they can't own slaves
where does this come from, what allows communists to say this
I mean, what allows it? the DoTP.
morally, the same thing that would morally allow anyone to dispossess anybody of property.
thats how i think of it at least. also clownballoon.
Panopticon posted:Themselves posted:As communists, we can absolutely tell people that they can't own slaves
where does this come from, what allows communists to say this
Deez nuts.
Panopticon posted:Themselves posted:As communists, we can absolutely tell people that they can't own slaves
what allows communists to say this
pressure from the lungs, which creates phonation in the glottis in the larynx, which is then modified by the vocal tract into different vowels and consonants - Wikipedia
Themselves posted:Panopticon posted:
Themselves posted:
As communists, we can absolutely tell people that they can't own slaves
where does this come from, what allows communists to say this
I mean, what allows it? the DoTP.
morally, the same thing that would morally allow anyone to dispossess anybody of property.
thats how i think of it at least. also clownballoon.
gibbonstrength seems to think it's inappropriate for people in one country to tell people in another country how to organise their society. if it just comes down to might makes right, isn't that inaccurate?
Panopticon posted:Themselves posted:Panopticon posted:
Themselves posted:
As communists, we can absolutely tell people that they can't own slaves
where does this come from, what allows communists to say this
I mean, what allows it? the DoTP.
morally, the same thing that would morally allow anyone to dispossess anybody of property.
thats how i think of it at least. also clownballoon.gibbonstrength seems to think it's inappropriate for people in one country to tell people in another country how to organise their society. if it just comes down to might makes right, isn't that inaccurate?
there is a deeply ingrained belief that humanity's development can be expressed as a measure of liberalism and there is a colonialist attitude that desires to inject more liberalism to make a country more human. this tendency is different in character than the desire of communists, socialists, abolitionists, etc and any attempts to equate these would only be taken seriously on stormfront
Edited by pogfan1996 ()
pogfan1996 posted:Panopticon posted:
there is a deeply ingrained belief that humanity's development can be expressed as a measure of liberalism and there is a colonialist attitude desires to inject more liberalism to make a country more human. this tendency is different in character than the desire of communists, socialists, abolitionists, etc and any attempts to equate these would only be taken seriously on stormfront
could you explain the difference
Panopticon posted:pogfan1996 posted:Panopticon posted:
there is a deeply ingrained belief that humanity's development can be expressed as a measure of liberalism and there is a colonialist attitude desires to inject more liberalism to make a country more human. this tendency is different in character than the desire of communists, socialists, abolitionists, etc and any attempts to equate these would only be taken seriously on stormfrontcould you explain the difference
instead of me explaining the difference between liberatory politics and reactionary politics, why do you think it is worthwhile to make ridiculous equivalencies between imperialism and abolitionism
Panopticon posted:gibbonstrength seems to think it's inappropriate for people in one country to tell people in another country how to organise their society. if it just comes down to might makes right, isn't that inaccurate?
No, that's not accurate at all! The subject matter was the vulgarity of unexamined chauvinistic liberal ideology demanding sweeping "reforms" they don't understand in locales they didn't know the first thing about until some hack's thinkpiece spoon fed them a narrative about the need for reforms.
If you can't tell the difference between that critique of imperialist attitudes and an asinine radical agnosticism towards all values then I just don't know what to say anymore. It shouldn't be possible to be this obtuse.
Panopticon posted:could you explain the difference
Were you always like this or did some past cranial trauma sabotage your epistemological capabilities. I swear this is some kind of exotic aphasia.
pogfan1996 posted:instead of me explaining the difference between liberatory politics and reactionary politics, why do you think it is worthwhile to make ridiculous equivalencies between imperialism and abolitionism
shriekingviolet posted:No, that's not accurate at all! The subject matter was the vulgarity of unexamined chauvinistic liberal ideology demanding sweeping "reforms" they don't understand in locales they didn't know the first thing about until some hack's thinkpiece spoon fed them a narrative about the need for reforms.
If you can't tell the difference between that critique of imperialist attitudes and an asinine radical agnosticism towards all values then I just don't know what to say anymore. It shouldn't be possible to be this obtuse.
they are both a group of people imposing their values onto another group of people
if the criticism is of the effectiveness of the imposition or content of the values, that's one thing, but gibbonstrength seemed to be criticising the very idea of the imposition of different values.
pogfan1996 posted:did we just trigger your slave owning fetish or something
you are thinking of another poster
Edited by Panopticon ()
colddays posted:Let's not lose track of the fact that Russia is an imperialist force too. She supports Iran and Syria, but this is to further her own interests in the Middle East, and weaken the rival Amerikkkan influence. I see some people on the internet getting way too excited about Putin.
If this is a parody of the other reactionary opinions in this thread then its a terrific troll, against me and probably others
colddays posted:Let's not lose track of the fact that Russia is an imperialist force too. She supports Iran and Syria, but this is to further her own interests in the Middle East, and weaken the rival Amerikkkan influence. I see some people on the internet getting way too excited about Putin.
colddays posted:Let's not lose track of the fact that Russia is an imperialist force too. She supports Iran and Syria, but this is to further her own interests in the Middle East, and weaken the rival Amerikkkan influence. I see some people on the internet getting way too excited about Putin.
this line of thinking erroneously presumes that they are equal forces with equal material consequences for the lives of oppressed and endangered peoples, sabotaging resistance against very real and urgent problems. putin isn't someone to get excited over but his opposition to american hegemony actually is, within these specific circumstances. calling them rivals implies an even playing field: russia's self-interested pursuit of geopolitical influence isn't equivalent to the west's currently existing system of imperialist exploitation, even if it might aspire to eventually be. where that creates friction it can present opportunities for leverage against imperial designs, and passing on those because motives are Insufficiently Pure is putting our own smug pride over peoples lives.
colddays posted:What's reactionary about saying a government that works for a wealthy class of "oligarchs" wants to expand its influence?
saddam was killing his own people
colddays posted:I really don't mean to say that I don't support Russian actions in Syria or want to make a false equivalency between Russia and the US. I should have made that clear from the beginning. I just don't like some of the narrative surrounding Russia that I've seen come from many on the left.
This is what Lacan called the "subject-supposed-to-believe." Rather than making a claim to truth, you have invented a fantasy of someone who believes incorrectly, or more accurately believes too hard and uncivilly. Whether this figure exists in your life or not is only a symptom of the need to invent a figure to justify the emptiness of truth against postmodern discourse. Of course, this is inevitable in the initial terms set by Panopticon, which any claim to truth at all is unimaginable against the absolute relativism of the present. I am against relativism and deconstruction which are symptoms of liberalism. I am for truth. I claim that Russia is not imperialist. I claim that China is socialist. I claim that communism is scientific truth and that its victory is assured. I claim that Zizek sucks but he's good for trolling liberals.
colddays posted:I really don't mean to say that I don't support Russian actions in Syria or want to make a false equivalency between Russia and the US. I should have made that clear from the beginning. I just don't like some of the narrative surrounding Russia that I've seen come from many on the left.
Sure some people get goofy about it and need to learn a little nuance. However, it's important to remember not only that weirdos with poor communication skills and bizarre aesthetic fixations aren't the entirety of the left, but that our opposition puts them in the spotlight for a reason and constantly reacting to that is a drain on our capabilities.
I don't think it's a valuable use of the anti-imperialist left's limited resources and constricted access to public discourse to constantly back itself into a corner of clarifying and apologizing for contradicting imperialist narrative. We should instead be using our limited window into the public to clearly and decisively insist on the cessation of illegal wars of aggression and campaigns of economic ruin coming from our own country, because our own complicity in them makes the affairs of China Russia etc more or less none of our business. Stop constantly trying to deny that we're crazy, focus on speaking truth to power with statements that are sane.
cars posted:
wish I had some warm fuzzy good cop memes to go with all these spicy bad cop memes
what you're talking about isn't really a problem for the left in any practical way. for one thing, if a mass movement is to support the left in the west, if that's even possible, it will require general dissemination of an attitude of skepticism toward propaganda about foreign government who resist imperialism, including bourgeois governments who do so in the interest of their own country's bourgeoisie. a scrupulous dedication to the middle ground will impress no one and do nothing; that ground is the fortified capital of the enemy. even if it were a problem it wouldn't be the one to spend your energy fixing. it's well behind, for instance, the problem of building a movement with that skeptical attitude based in substantial, durable material conditions needed to advance it.
but it seems like more of an issue that it is, it's easy to read that sort of caricature into others' vigorous denunciations of imperialism and it feels "right" to complain about it because it's bourgeois-values-approved propaganda to denounce leftists as pawns and tools of foreign governments, especially that particular government, so it's the path of least resistance for the minds of most people in the west, including most communists in the west. if you do it loud enough and well enough they might let you write columns about it for VICE, though, so like all wayward failsons and daughters you should weigh your options carefully.
colddays posted:Sorry, that was a bad post, you're right.
no worries. i do truly mean what i say when i say it's the path of least resistance furrowed out in the mental landscape of most people in the west including people who eventually end up posting here later about how it sucks and is bullshit. self-criticism is good and neat.
colddays posted:You're right, and although it wasn't my intention, I was "concern trolling". I don't think that anti-imperialists should worry too much about Russia at the moment, and I support Russia's actions in Syria. The USA is obviously the enemy of anti-imperialists here. My issue was that if the USA was defeated, or out of the picture or whatever, then Assad and Putin would still be bourgeois but now they wouldn't be anti-imperialist, so then they would be very bad and worthy of opposition. Clearly, this isn't something to worry about at this point, and that's where my mistake was.
i'm not so sure the syrian government would fall where you're suggesting it would in any imperialist project likely to materialize in the next half-century, like i don't think it's ever been the dream of any government in the region except israel to rely on a constant flow of pale-skinned foreigners humping in-country to handle problems of mutual stability or defense.
colddays posted:My issue was that if the USA was defeated, or out of the picture or whatever, then Assad and Putin would still be bourgeois but now they wouldn't be anti-imperialist, so then they would be very bad and worthy of opposition.
It can be a helpful rule of thumb to take cues from leftist groups in the region, like in Syria before the war a lot of parties certainly weren't pleased with Assad and along the Turkish border you've got independence struggles against all comers from the IFR who IIRC are hoxhaists? But it's still important for them that american contras get the fuck out, even the IFR don't want to trade Assad for western jackboots and the IS they want genuine Kurdish self determination. (If I'm wrong/confused on this particular interaction I'd love to hear it, it's damned hard to get accurate information)
Similarly, there's significant legitimate organized left opposition to Putin in Russia (not counting west-pandering shit like Pussy Riot,) but they certainly don't want "help" in the form of encircling them with nazi puppet governments and cruise missiles with the excuse that Putin Bad Man.
So in the dream event that the US is defeated/neutralized as a global shit disturber, it's not like there would be a vacuum in the local left that westerners would need to fill. If anything they are often doing far better than us! We don't need to worry about doing their job for them, and if solidarity and support is required they can tell us.