Which side is the front?

Anti-Jewish sentiment was and is never justified, but anti-zionist sentiment certainly was and still is. I don’t doubt that xenophobia played a role in this protest, but it is inappropriate to say that it was purely motivated by xenophobia.

It’s like ZA/UM exploded and left behind little fragments that are still alive somehow.

For those curious, this account on Xitter claimed responsibility. Their stated reasons are indeed ridiculous, but I don’t at all have a hard time believing that people can be that misguided.

If you’ve had bad experiences with anarchists before I’m sorry, but in my experience anarchists have been much kinder and more welcoming than marxist-leninists, especially in person. Characterizing anarchists as the angsty atheists of the political world is a bit hurtful, but I can see where you’re coming from. In the same way atheists sometimes lash out against religious folks, anarchists sometimes lash out against marxist-leninists because of bad experiences in the past. A lot of anarchists I know went through a similar political development where they started being curious about socialism and were met with pretty harsh responses to questions about the more authoritarian aspects of marxism-leninism.

Point taken, but although it may not have ended well for the anarchists I believe their involvement in the Russian revolution was for the better since it could easily have gone in a much worse direction without them. Anarchists are always putting themselves in harm’s way to make this world a better place.

I appreciate that you don’t, I even have you tagged as “a polite marxist” so I must have had a positive interaction with you before, but many MLs I’ve debated before have downplayed anarchist contributions to the Russian revolution. I can understand how you might not encounter that very often since you’re not putting yourself out there as an anarchist.

I’ll admit my perspective may be skewed because I spend a good amount of time debating marxist-leninists, but I really don’t like arguing semantics unless it’s important to the discussion at large. For that reason I’ll often avoid using words in a way that will start semantics arguments that derail the discussion.

It’s also why I typically avoid calling people I’m currently debating tankies, because I think that makes them defensive and is bad for outreach. Maybe I’m wasting my time trying to change people’s minds, but if that’s the case then people who argue aggressively are definitely wasting their time.

I’m an anarchist and I agree with what you’re trying to say, but marxist-leninists are going to jump all over you with semantics arguments because of your unorthodox use of the word socialist.

Edit: I should mention you would be welcome in slrpnk communities. We’re primarily anarchist and have hexbear blocked for the aforementioned brigading, but we are welcoming to everyone so long as they behave themselves.

It is certainly not without historical precedent. Anarchists were quite heavily involved with the Russian revolution for example, although many historical-revisionist marxist-leninists would prefer to downplay that.

a fair amount of American sociological and economic standards are already steeped in socialist services

If you believe this to be true then you don’t understand what socialism actually is. You seem to be of the mind that any publicly funded service or welfare is socialist, and I don’t blame you for thinking this since it is what the mainstream American political discourse would have you believe.

In short, nine times out of ten, a socialist has absolutely no fucking idea what they’re talking about, but just parroting smug bullshit that they think makes them look edgy and educated.

When you say this immediately after demonstrating that you actually have no idea what you’re talking about it’s a pretty bad look. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

his solution (for a class of “intellectuals” like him to take charge) however, are just neoliberal swill

This is such a common pitfall that even self-described communists fall into it as well. When you hear people talk about a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” what they’re describing tends to devolve into “a class of intellectuals needs to guide the working class to the correct decisions” when questioned about what a “dictatorship of the proletariat” actually entails. Often they’ll try to justify it by saying it’s only temporary, but we all know how that pans out (see the USSR). This is why I consider myself an anarchist rather than a communist and regularly critique marxism-leninism.

Whose propaganda did you suck down blindly?

Chill out a bit, my comment could not have possibly given you the impression that I’m a supporter of capitalism if you had read it carefully. I began my comment by putting forward the capitalist argument for copyright - a steel-man argument - and ended it by debunking it.

Copyright is meant to foster and improve the commons and public domain

You said yourself that copyright establishes art as private property (or “intellectual property” if we’re being more precise). That does the opposite of fostering and improving the commons and public domain.

If copyright was not tradeable or transferable

Then it wouldn’t be copyright. Copyright is a capitalist construct, not a public good corrupted by capital.

At the root of this cognitive dissonance is who benefits and who doesn’t. Copyright law is selectively applied in a way that protects the powerful and exploits the powerless. In a capitalist economy copyright is meant to protect people’s livelihoods by ensuring they are compensated for their labor, but due to the power imbalance inherent to capitalism it is instead used only to protect the interests of capital. The fact that AI companies are granted full impunity to violate the copyright of millions is evidence that copyright law is ineffective at the task for which it was purportedly created.

Didn’t the MCU movies make a point to say it only matters if the person is worthy by Odin’s standards? I guess it just means Magneto meets Odin’s standards, whatever they are.

All value is subjective. I happen to believe humans’ ability to empathize across species is both beautiful and beneficial for the long-term sustainability of our species. Having empathy for other species helps us to understand the role nature plays in our lives, and to assert agency over the role we play in nature. Lacking empathy for animals allows us to see them as property, and humans tend to have an extractive and ultimately self-destructive disposition towards property.

Let me approach this from a different angle. If a military defeat is necessary to create revolutionary conditions, is it not then in the best interest of the working class in each imperialist power for the other to win, and does that not then put the working class in each imperialist power at odds with one another?

Don’t you believe in internationalism? Solidarity?

How many hundreds of thousands of lives does it cost to create revolutionary conditions, and how can you be so arrogant as to cheer while they’re fed into the meatgrinder, believing with such certainty that it means you’ll get your chance at revolution?

Kindly point out where I expressed critical support for western imperialism.

So does “tankie” and “woke.” I used mine correctly, you are indeed a tankie. When a chud calls a left-wing political activist woke, at least they’re using it correctly, even if they don’t necessarily know that they are.

You called me a liberal for - let me check - opposing imperialism regardless of who’s doing it. Interesting, do you think that fits the definition?

I thought it would be obvious I was mocking you by repeating the viewpoint you expressed without the air of pretentiousness that you surround it with, but I guess I was the stupid one for thinking you were capable of recognizing sarcasm.

Also “critical support” for what, Russian imperialism? Why does Russian imperialism deserve “critical support” while western imperialism deserves direct opposition?