all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 30 points 9 months ago

Maybe the time to talk shit isn't when the US is bearing down on both of them?

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Must be an unwritten rule out there that western socialists don't want in any way to have to defend any Latin American socialism. I guess I get that he doesn't want to be a "red boogey man" so he disavows, but it would be nice to see a little more respect or deference.

    Do European left parties recognize Venezuela or Cuba as comrades?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    No. Partially because EU left was heavily destroyed by USian propaganda and secret services (see e.g. Operarion Gladio that stopped in 1990 because it was exposed; we have no idea what is still hiding in the shadows).

    Partially because EU left is not really left, but only slightly less right than actual right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    The EU left are all neoliberals.

    We can see it clearly in the UK. Labour, who are historically the political arm of the unions, have been indulging in anti-immigration rhetoric that is indistinguishable from the far right.

    It's easier to see that they are deliberate controlled opposition rather than former lefties that have been red scared into being centrists

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 9 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    What’s more, openness to mass immigration is anti labour, as it worsens the positions of the worker (cheap competition who won’t unionize because they don’t mix well with the rest of the population).

    Fascist, gtfo

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago*

    Anti LOCAL labor, a crucial distinction. Not even "anti", really just decreasing their relative position, putting aside whether or not that position is already above others.

    So, a policy to enforce that raises the rights of one nationality above another. What do we call that? "National" "socialism"?

    You understand the idea of an empire pillaging the world and then trying to restrict access to the spoils?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    For decades, many left-leaning writers and speakers in the United States have felt obliged to establish their credibility by indulging in anticommunist and anti-Soviet genuflection, seemingly unable to give a talk or write an article or book review on whatever political subject without injecting some anti-Red sideswipe. The intent was, and still is, to distance themselves from the Marxist-Leninist Left.

    Adam Hochschild, a liberal writer and publisher, warned those on the Left who might be lackadaisical about condemning existing communist societies that they "weaken their credibility" (Guardian, 5/23/84). In other words, to be credible opponents of the cold war, we first had to join in cold war condemnations of communist societies. Ronald Radosh urged that the peace movement purge itself of communists so that it not be accused of being communist (Guardian, 3/16/83). If I understand Radosh: To save ourselves from anticommunist witchhunts, we should ourselves become witchhunters.

    Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being "smeared" as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations.

    The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by "communist subversives" or "loyal American liberals." All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent.

    Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds, 1997.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Why do all these statements being with "I want to be clear...", "Let me be perfectly clear: ..", "Now I want to be very clear on this:...", "Just to be clear..."

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago

    This is good for an American.

    Good for an American is still really bad.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago

    Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    It’s been like two days and dude already is pissing me off.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Some strangeness in overlying Venn Diagrams.

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (1 child)