Nazis co-opt socialist language all the time, it's important that we call this out, not bow out and cede the point to them, we shouldn't be "reactionaries for the reactionaries". Patsocs are just a variation of the same thing, using vaguely socialist language to push for Fascism. They aren't "leading" anything, they're scavenging the scraps of socialist thought to cover their reprehensible ideology in something more appealing. They only get any sort of influence at all because they are a useful trap for anyone starting to learn about leftist thought who won't be able to spot them as the obvious POS they are.

Leading seems a strong word to use here, given most of my opinions come from the same place they have been every time any democrats eventually fails to deliver. I honestly do not care about the DSA or Zohran cause I knew he wasn't going to do shit the first time I saw him waffle on Palestine slightly. That's just how these things always work. Like I said elsewhere. If good things come from it, that's great. But I have to little spoons to waste my time and energy on these things. I know where they are going to end up. At worst i'm wrong, which would be a great thing.

I'm convinced that ACP is a federal op to defuse our most salient, effective rhetorical arguments for revolutionary action.

Their whole MO seems to be: Co-opting our theory and anti-demsoc points that would encourage people to get involved with organizing and ML ideas and associating them with the reactionary garbage spouted by these losers the very next sentence.

Ultraleftists, anarchists, demsocs, and turbolibs will turn away with complete disgust and remember that the next time they see those theories mentioned by real MLs, immediately being able to dismiss us as similarly reactionary, which they will "confirm" when we critically support AES and anti-imperialist states despite them occasionally doing something socially reactionary.

We need to develop good countermeasures to this.

Like the people who don't know the actual meaning of 'Sewer socialism' ,'Champagne socialism' always makes me think of that quote from Caviar with champagne by Jukka Gronow about how workers where able to afford Champagne and Caviar for the first time during the Stalin period

idk if anyone has the screenshot of the screen saved

Stalin's Russia is best known for its political repression, forced collectivization and general poverty. Caviar with Champagne presents an altogether different aspect of Stalin's rule that has never been fully analyzed - the creation of a luxury goods society. At the same time as millions were queuing for bread and starving, drastic changes took place in the cultural and economic policy of the country, which had important consequences for the development of Soviet material culture and the promotion of its ideals of consumption.The 1930s witnessed the first serious attempt to create a genuinely Soviet commercial culture that would rival the West. Government ministers took exploratory trips to America to learn about everything from fast food hamburgers to men's suits in Macy's. The government made intricate plans to produce high-quality luxury goods en masse, such as chocolate, caviar, perfume, liquor and assorted novelties. Perhaps the best symbol of this new cultural order was Soviet Champagne, which launched in 1936 with plans to produce millions of bottles by the end of the decade.* Drawing on previously neglected archival material, Jukka Gronow examines how such new pleasures were advertised and enjoyed. He interprets Soviet-styled luxury goods as a form of kitsch and examines the ideological underpinnings behind their production.This new attitude toward consumption was accompanied by the promotion of new manners of everyday life. The process was not without serious ideological contradictions. Ironically, a factory worker living in the United States - the largest capitalist society in the world - would have been hard-pressed to afford caviar or champagne for a special occasion in the 1930s, but a Soviet worker theoretically could (assuming supplies were in stock)

What does that even mean "be a bit more critical of who seems to be leading the criticism"? Who here isn't intensely critical of chuds (and patsocs)? Should we "be more critical" about pejoratively using the word liberal because in the US it's always chuds who are the loudest in their hatred of liberals?

This is a very good attempt at pigeonholing all criticism of entryism into the genocide party.

People make "critiques" of Israel that I wouldn't. "I'm not saying you shouldn't criticize Netanyahu or Israel but maybe be a but more critical of who seems to be leading that criticism." That sound right? (Actually I see a lot of explicit defending of Zionism from the electoralists here, so they won't quite understand this analogy...)

It will work very well on people who don't think about anything. I knew the level of discourse on this site was getting worse, but is this really where we're at? This is fucking awful.

You are genuinely comparing the critiques of the tailist tendencies of social democrats to the explicitily tailist tendencies of the ACP and Jackson Hinkle with out even bothering to point fingers or even name a single take you've seen to invoke such a serious accusation? Something this dishonest is certainly what with someone with complete confidence in Zohran would do. /s

always be critical of course, and push officials to do better, but idek what the left anti-zohran case would even be anymore. I'd be curious to know if there are any locals on here who don't support him.

While obviously I don't like Zohran he's probably the best liberalism has to offer and as a New Yorker he will probably improve my life on a material level.

Honestly folks need to re learn what critical support means. The folks who shout critical support for MTG and Tucker Carlson are often the same who absolutely drag Mamdani. Either apply critical support and accept that the world has nuance or don't and be an ultra, fine, but it's extra layers of stupid to critically support fascists while providing no nuance for the marginally left

Are they leading the criticism or tailing it? Seems like the latter in my eyes

The curse of being a communist and being forced to defend social democrats from absolutely dogshit criticism lands in the USA

Hey we criticized him first before the hogs got wind enough to make him their free algorithm slop topic.