Hawk Newsome BLM "If this country doesn't give us what we want we will burn down the system.."
- Thread starter J Bella Funk
- Start date
Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Yeah, I know. I don't care. For a few reasons.
Firstly, I've never been one to buy into the fear of Marxism. It has its roots in the red scare of the 50s, and is currently enjoying a popular resurgence thanks to charismatic hacks like Jordan Peterson, but I remain very much un-scared. I personally find Marx's views on the necessity of "revolution" to be distasteful and inaccurate, and I wouldn't trust anyone, alive or dead, to lead such a revolution...but pragmatically, there is actually very little to fear.
Secondly, I don't have to agree with the fundamental worldview of someone - i.e. their reason for doing something - to agree with their goals. I am a firm believer in "outcome over intent", and the goal of BLM right now is quite clear: criminal justice reform, from police, to courts, to prisons. There is nothing inherently "Marxist" about that. In fact, all the talk has been in strictly capitalist terms, namely restructuring of funds. I am in favor of that, and I hope you are, too. I'll make you a deal, though - the day they start openly advocating for throwing the bourgeoisie in gulags, they will lose my support.
Thirdly, though there is an organization called Black Lives Matter, the movement itself is global, decentralized, and only loosely affiliated. So I don't really hold my local chapter here in Austin, for example, accountable for the philosophical opinions of Ms Cullors.
Fourthly, and this is purely to do with feelings, the historical echo of it just rubs me the wrong way. MLK was smeared by the FBI for expressing sympathetic views to Marxism, and had a surveillance campaign against him. It feels slimy.
"Antifa" isn't an organization at all. It's barely even a noun. And the type of antifa activists you're thinking of are black bloc activists, which are themselves completely decentralized. So if that's who you mean to oppose, then be specific. Otherwise, you're giving people like Trump the ammunition to label an abstract concept a "terrorist organization". You don't want that.
No it isn't, dude. I don't know how much time you've spent debating with people who are opposed to criminal justice reform, but I can assure you that "Patrice Khan-Cullors said she was a Marxist" is very low on the list of most common talking points.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,712
- 14,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Words have meaning, if someone defines themselves as a "Marxist", then I take them at their word.
It was the foundation for the theory and practice of communism. Which is a dangerous ideology and responsible for tens (if not hundreds) of millions of death and vast human suffering throughout time.
I understand that the term was misused (the same way "socialism" is misused today) to smear "enemies of the establishment" back in the day like MLK and various union leaders.
...but that doesn't change what the words mean, and their actions and statements would indicate that they're actually Marxists. (and not in the pejorative sense, but in the true sense)
Tearing down statues, suggesting that "the whole system needs torn down to rebuild it all from scratch", etc... are all textbook Marxist theories.
And I'm not specifically referring to confederate statues...which I've made very clear in numerous posts, should come down. Wanting to get rid of cheaply made monuments that were made in the 1960's as a middle finger to the civil rights movement is understandable. Wanting to tear down any old historical statue of a person because the person didn't live up to today's standards is something very different.
Ironically enough, Marx was a tad racist himself and I don't see the cancel culture crew coming after him. They'll demand that Columbus be vilified over his actions in the 1400's...they'll demand that sketch comedy performers be vilified over something they did (that wasn't racist in intent) in 2000...yet, Marx & Engels are left untouched. Odd...
It's amazing that sites like "History as a Weapon" have to provide this disclaimer on their site for pages glorifying Marx.
Wonder why they don't give that same courtesy to other folks... The "it was a different time" logic only seems apply to people whose political ideas they revere, everyone else has to meet today's standards or get cancelled.
Which is why you'll notice that I used the word "movement" to describe them in my post. However, I do find it ironic that a group that uses "we're decentralized" as a rebuttal point is often times rooted in collectivism as one of their goals.
The fact that so many fly this flag:
(which are the colors of anarcho communism)
is telling...
They basically try to create a false dichotomy in which they promote forms of communism as the only remedy for fascism.
Which talking points would you like to discuss?
When I've debated many folks about the topics of the "BlackLivesMatter" organization, or the "AntiFa" movement, I've yet to encounter anyone who said they oppose them because "I don't think Black lives matter" or "because I think fascism is good".
I'm don't doubt that you may find some folks who harbor those beliefs on a "white power" message board somewhere, but I'd be shocked if that was even remotely the case for the overwhelming majority of people who oppose those two groups.
Upvote
0
Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
That's probably true, Solzhenitsyn. And if she identified as a Stalinist or a Maoist, I'd be worried. Capitalism is the foundation of the slave trade, and sweatshop labor, but I don't automatically assume people are in favor of either if they like Ayn Rand.
I realize, with 70+ years of red scare propaganda baked into our collective bones, it's difficult for people in this country to see nuance in this subject, but I at least strive to.
Again, for all the reasons I said, I'm not scared, and don't care much. I care about criminal justice reform.
...is something literally everyone does when, for whatever reason, they don't want to idealize someone, their deeds, or ideas. We did it with symbols of the British monarchy, following the Revolution. We did it again with symbols of the Hussein regime when we invaded Baghdad. The French did it when Nazi occupation ended. The Lakota and Arapaho will do it if we ever finally honor the Treaty of Fort Laramie and cede the Black Hills. It's not "erasing history", as the canard goes. It's erasing idealization, and mythology. And it's a practice much, much older than Marx.
I can count on one hand, with fingers left over, the people I have met who sincerely believe that, in the literal sense. As in, not merely restructuring the institution, but completely abolishing it and ripping out the infrastructure itself. Most people understand that is neither possible, nor wise.
And if they do, guess what? I disagree with them. That's a thing people can do.
And?
It would change precisely none of my thoughts about criminal justice reform if that happened, so I wouldn't care.
You're still talking specifically about black bloc activists, it seems. You should be consistent and say so, if that's the case.
Otherwise, you give ammunition to the idea that abstract concepts can be declared war on. I don't know about you, but after the "war on drugs", and the "war on terror", I've had quite enough of that.
No, that's not at all what I was thinking of. When I debate criminal justice reform, it's much more common to hear things like,
"So you want cops to be ineffective at their jobs?" (Spoiler alert: They already are)
Or
"So you want the whole country to look like CHOP?"
Or,
"So you're gonna call a social worker when a mass shooting is happening?"
Or personal anecdotes about "my [insert relative] is a cop, and how dare you disrespect them" (so is my youngest brother, so this always backfires).
I have run into quite a few overtly racist responses, but they're not the most common.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,319
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
And if someone defines someone else as a "Marxist," whose word do you take?
You might want to get a refund on that textbook.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,712
- 14,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I would review what the actual person in question has to say.
The words "marxist"/"communist"/"socialist" often get incorrectly tossed around as a pejorative (people said Obama was a socialist when he wasn't), and occasionally as a compliment ("we should be socialist like the Denmark") when the terms often times are not applicable.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,712
- 14,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Sweatshop labor you can make a case for, I don't know that I'd agree that the slave trade was rooted in capitalism being that the pillars of it are wage labor, voluntary exchange, and competitive markets. Slavery wouldn't really fit that mold as it wasn't wage labor, nor was it voluntary.
...but there's a stark difference between tearing down a statue of something that was directly built in opposition to a value, vs. tearing one down simply because one sees it's a historical depiction of a person.
A statue of a confederate general, erected specifically to "let everyone know where we stand on the issue of black rights" (which as I noted, was basically the south's way of giving a middle finger to the civil rights movement), is perfectly understandable to remove.
However, removing a statue of George Washington, simply because he acted unethically by today's standards, isn't the same thing. The Washington statue wasn't erected to make a statement one way or the other on the topic of slavery.
Or, abbreviated version: "A statue that's intent was to convey a message of white superiority" isn't the same as "a statue depicting a person who just happened to think white people were superior".
Restructuring police departments is one thing, restructuring the system to fit marxist theory is something quite different.
Police reform has nothing to do with the system of economy that exists in the country. You have numerous capitalist countries in Europe that have managed to do it and not have the same issues we having to remove concepts like private ownership, wage labor, or voluntary exchange.
While the overlaying concept "Marxism" may be able to be conveyed as "abstract" as there are different forms, the underlying ideas that all of them share as a common thread are not abstract.
IE: "the necessity to overthrow capitalism", "collective ownership", "removal of the concept of wage labor"
"Nationalism" is an abstract as there are several forms of it, however, there are key concepts that all forms of nationalism share. One being "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, above the interests of other nations". So if someone finds that concept problematic for any reason, they're probably not concerned with whether that concept is coming from Ethno-nationalism vs. Religion-nationalism vs. Cultural-nationalism.
Being that I see it as problematic to attempt to overthrow concepts like private ownership, wage labor, and voluntary exchange...the particular brand of marxism being promoted (Neo, classical, stalinism, etc...) all share that problematic underlying concept.
...but my objection is to the notion that one must "be expected to" lend support to a movement or organization that's pitching marxism in order to be for those types of reforms.
It's basically the same way I feel about PETA. They have a noble sounding name, and on the surface "People for the ethical treatment of Animals" doesn't sound much different than ASPCA "American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals"
However, the two groups are very different in their tactics and underlying "sub-agendas" with regards to how they operate, and which goals they're pursuing.
It'd be like saying "If you don't support PETA, that must mean you like dog fighting"
Upvote
0
TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,319
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Which one? The accuser or the accused?
Which brings us back to Antifa.
As I've said before, any idiot can toss a rock through a window and claim they're Antifa, and who's to say that they aren't?
Now, if the government rounds you up and accuses you of having connections to that "terrorist" organization, well, chances are, you probably do... chances are that you know someone who knows someone who is anti-fascism.
The only sure way to be anti-antifa is to be profa. I'll pass.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,712
- 14,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
The accused...
If like in the case of Patrisse Cullen (co-founder of BLM), the person openly states that they're a Marxist, then they're a Marxist. The accusation is accurate.
If like in the case of Obama, the far-right accused of him of being one, however he's not, and neither his words no his actions/policies would indicate that he is. The accusation was inaccurate.
That's the "false-choice" scenario that many present.
Given that most of the people who self-identify with that movement choose to fly the flag/colors of
Antifaschistische Aktion, which was a militant movement set up by the then-Stalinist Communist Party of Germany (KPD)
...your conclusion is that the only way I can be truly sure I'm properly opposing fascism is to support this movement, otherwise I run the risk of being inadvertently pro-fascism?
Maybe if these folks don't want to risk being labelled as "terrorists", they should think about snagging a different flag to fly at protests instead of the flag of an actual terrorist group that operated in Germany in the early 30's, who ironically enough, attacked social democrats (a value that many Antifa supporters claim to embrace?) in Germany more than they attacked Nazi's as it was largely a 3-way battle for control between the Communist party in Germany, the Nazis, and coalition party between liberals and social democrats.
In fact: "focused largely on attacking their main adversary, the centre-left Social Democratic Party of Germany, whom they referred to as social fascists"
They called social democrats "social fascists", which in communist theory they described as:
Social fascism was a theory supported by the Communist International (Comintern) and affiliated communist parties in the early 1930s that held that social democracy was a variant of fascism because it stood in the way of a dictatorship of the proletariat
Upvote
0
TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,319
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Well that depends on whether they're the real deal or a poseur... I spent a month in college in black leather trying to get into some goth chick's... ahem, "good graces"; it didn't turn me Goth (also, it didn't work).
A year later is was "peace and love" to impress some hippie chick... that time it worked, although I wish it hadn't.
But let's agree that Cullen is in fact the real deal -- She know what real Marxism is and she practices what she preaches.
Great! It'll be interesting to hear some genuine Marxism instead of the Right's perennial boogyman.
Didn't stop them from shouting it again and again -- louder and louder until the rest of the right took up the chant. That's the great thing about mobs: they're only ever as smart as their loudest member.
That's the "false-choice" scenario that many present.
Given that most of the people who self-identify with that movement choose to fly the flag/colors of
Antifaschistische Aktion, which was a militant movement set up by the then-Stalinist Communist Party of Germany (KPD)
...your conclusion is that the only way I can be truly sure I'm properly opposing fascism is to support this movement, otherwise I run the risk of being inadvertently pro-fascism?
Again, you probably know someone who knows someone who's marched, spoken out, donated, or in some way supported this, so... congratulations! You have connections to a domestic terrorist organization!
Oh, but don't be worried... if the police come asking you questions, you'll cooperate. It's not you they're looking for, after all.
Well, the joke's on them now. We have these terrorists' faces; we can identify them. If the excrement hits the air conditioner, we can round up the whole list for questioning.
Easy-peasy.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hence why slave traders dehumanize their slaves. There is no moral quandary if you believe your chattel aren't actually capable of comprehending their own voluntary decisions, and you come up with racist pseudoscience like "drapetomania" to explain away why slaves flee captivity.
Since when do we judge things solely on their intent?
A radio DJ could play a song by R. Kelly, and preface up front saying "in playing this song, I am in no way intending to endorse R. Kelly's documented history of sexual abuse and statutory rape, I just think the song is a hot jam, that's all." I wouldn't be making any excuses for that person. Would you?
Intent isn't everything. Outcome is bigger. And the outcome of doing something like that - whether you intend it happen or not - is to normalize the act of looking away from reprehensible behavior, because the radio, much like a statue, is a publicly shared medium. It's not the same as listening to a song by a problematic artist on your own time, in your bedroom. You normalize the mindset - "Yeah, he psychologically tortured and raped a bunch of women and girls...but dude could sing! You can't take that away" - by publicly promoting his work. That's part of the reason why they get away with it for so long.
I don't wish to participate in that mindset. My band stopped playing Michael Jackson's music for the same reason. I think it's a sign that we're maturing as a society, and thinking deeper about the consequences of our actions and the messages they send, whether intended or not. That's a good thing.
And getting back to the specifics about statues, it sounds like at base, the worry is that if we took down all the public statues of problematic people, we'd have very few statues left.
To that I ask again...so?
I've got good news for you then - that isn't going to happen. So, fear not.
...Unless we continue down this path of ignoring the will of the people for long enough, and expressly communicating to them that peaceful protest is worthless. Then you can reasonably expect a much more destructive reaction. I'd like that to not happen, hence why I am advocating for change now.
That's true. And we should be looking to them for advice on how to do it right, and take lessons from areas where they've been faltering.
It's going to involve much more that just reallocating funds from the "jack of all trades" model of policing in this country, where cops handle everything from rape and homicide to mental health crises to truancy to writing tickets for spitting bubblegum on the sidewalk. It's also going to involve addressing the underlying issues that cause crime in the first place.
It's also going to involve listening to experts, something we currently suck at.
I wasn't thinking of Marxism when I said that. I was thinking of Trump declaring "Antifa" a "terrorist organization".
Upvote
0
I don't think any of us are making any sort of claim that slavery was okay in any fashion. Washington didn't like slavery. Lincoln didn't like slavery. Most of the founders didn't support it.
African Americans had slaves, Native Americans had slaves.
So we are all in agreement is slavery is bad.
Capitalism is not a slavery belief system. Any more that Marxism is. Marxism in practice has rounded up people and forced them into labor. So neither is pure in it's practice as human beings are not pure. Native Americans enslaved each other, Africans enslaved each other. I could go on. So to simply intimate that Capitalism is at fault is patently untrue.
As far as the statues are concerned it's the intent of the destroyers that matter. The left is now running a concerted effort to revise history in such a fashion that makes slavery the ONLY thing that is important. If you had a slave, you were evil and nothing you did before or after matters. NOTHING. It goes beyond a simple tearing down of a statue. There is an effort on the left to destroy America and paint America as nothing more than an evil wicked land with little to no redeeming value. Meanwhile failing to understand the actual difficulties of the mores of the times which includes people's change of heart as time passed.
And this type of history which is to see history solely through a singular lense does not allow for a country to be great or create a foundation for further greatness because it can never be or achieve no matter what.
Yet they do not project the same things about every other country in the world. Because they have all been the same.
And to continue to perpetuate a false narrative of America is still a racist country who keeps the black man down despite the fact that balck people have the same freedoms as everyone else is further evidence of revisionism. It allows for nothing to be acknowledged except for slavery if which NO one living today in America experienced. And very few today that experienced the racism of the Democratic south of the Jim Crowe years.
In fact the left if today lauds the Democrats as being supporters of the black people and rushed to fogive and excuse their past, while in the same breath refuses to do the same for the rest of America.
Upvote
0
Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't see that. I see people having a deeper reckoning about who we idolize, and idealize. I think that's a sign of maturity.
Legally, yes. But laws aren't magical. And just becuase some of them are off the books, doesn't mean their effects don't linger.
Here's an idea - take your hypothesis to your local BLM chapter. I'm sure they'll be enthralled to hear your insights into their lived experience.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,746
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
They aren't meant to be "magical", whatever you meant by that.
But if even the laws being changed that gave blacks freedom in this country isn't enough, then what would be? Committing violence isn't going to change anything, especially the stereotypes that some people hold about black people being violent. Threatening businesses that don't post signs supporting BLM isn't going to change anyone's perception about blacks being in gangs and extorting money or support from people or businesses.
So what's left other than change the laws? It worked when Abraham Lincoln did it, even though BLM people show their appreciation today by wanting to tear down any monuments of him.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Whilst I'm not in favour of any kind of anarchy, I'm not sure how different this statement is to that of many pro-gun-rights/ pro-second amendment people.
"If this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will take up arms against the system and replace it"
Upvote
0
Try mentioning gun ownership restrictions or gun bans and you'll inevitably get a crop of pro-2A people issuing warnings about how they're armed so the government can't take their guns away. It's the entire basis of the second amendment for many people.
I'm not saying there aren't pro-gun people who are more reasonable, believe 2A related to the national guard etc. etc. but there's a large proportion of them who go the whole 9 yards.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,712
- 14,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
...sure, I would agree with that. However, rallying against something like that doesn't have to come in the form of different problematic ideology.
There's two ways to approach any issue, the constructive approach, and the "I'm made right now so I'm going to do something drastic right now!", sort of radical reactionary approach.
For instance, if you look at the ethical issues and environmental issues caused by animal agriculture, and ways to address it, there are two approaches.
A) you can barge into a steakhouse and start angrily yelling and calling everyone murderers & throw buckets of fake blood on a truck driver that's hauling cattle
or...
B) you can take the approach like the creators of "Beyond Meat" and "Impossible Foods" and "Nuggs" and create a replacement product that people actually want to eat because it tastes like the real thing.
Most of the time, people wouldn't even preface it with that, they would just play the song.
We did pretty regularly up until the near recent past. The idea that "anything even remotely associated with someone who did something bad needs to be entirely removed from society" used to be reserved for the particularly vile people like Hitler, Pol Pot, and the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide.
With the exception of the extreme examples I listed above, it was generally understood that nobody was perfect and positive accomplishments didn't have to be bumped up against the person's track record in other areas to be validated.
For instance, if people found out that one of the men who discovered chemotherapy started courting their future wife when he was 30 and she was 17, would that mean it's time to boycott chemotherapy? Obviously nobody in present time condones that sort of behavior, but most understood that a person acting within the norms of the time they were living in shouldn't discredit their accomplishments, nor should it prevent someone from enjoying the benefits of something they created.
IE: Listening to Michael Jackson's music, or even respecting his musical accomplishments, doesn't have to be tethered to something bad that occurred at neverland ranch.
We would have very few left...but that's why I said the intent matters.
If a statue is erected specifically for the purpose of showing reverence to a problematic idea (like most of the confederate statues were), then there's justification for wanting them removed and not having them on public property or kept up on the taxpayer's dime.
However, if the statue is to honor accomplishments of someone who did some great things, but happened to act unethically in other areas, simply having a statue doesn't normalize that behavior.
When the first calls to remove confederate statues came, and people started presenting slippery slope arguments about how it wouldn't stop with confederate statues, I accused them of a "right wing slippery slope fallacy", as it turns out, they can come back and call me out for that because they were right and I was wrong. It didn't stop with confederate statues. There are now calls to remove statues of Lincoln as well.
If one wants to tear down the statues of the Confederacy, and as soon as that fight is won, (which it largely has been, you're seeing it getting removed from state houses (Mississippi, the last state to have it, is officially removing it) and Nascar is forbidding it, I think it's safe to say the "let's get rid of confederate stuff" fight has been won)...and not a week later, many of those same folks immediately zeroed in on Lincoln statues (the guy fighting against the confederacy), then one has to question whether or not it was actually about the confederacy, or if there was a bigger objective in mind...
Given that they didn't stop at Confederate iconography, is there any reason to think they would stop at Lincoln if people gave into that one and let the Lincoln statues come down?
I'd love to be able to ask the question those folks "Which US president or prominent US leaders would you find it acceptable to have a statue of?", and if they can't think of any prior to 1992, then it's pretty clear at that point their target is "the history of the US, in general"
It may not happen in the next 30 years, but it could happen. There was a time when even a mere mention of communist ideals would disqualify a candidate from even being viable in the court of public opinion. However, those attitudes are changing.
More than a third of millennials polled approve of communism
Granted, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt has many don't seem to know what those words actually mean. They prop up countries like Denmark as "socialism", so much so, that even the Danish PM, in a speech at Harvard, had to set the record straight
https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist
Speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Danish PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen told students that he had “absolutely no wish to interfere the presidential debate in the US” but nonetheless attempted to set the record straight about his country.
"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.
Agreed
Also Agreed
That's the issue with co-opting a movement (their slogans, flags, symbolism, colors) that was a terrorist organization.
Antifaschistische Aktion - Wikipedia
Perhaps they should be a little more discerning...
The original "Antifa" they're looking to emulate (or at least I assume they are by using their flag) was a radical militant communist group (sponsored by Stalin) in the 1920's-30's Germany that did resort to terror, and did so even more against "social democrats" than they did Nazis. Ironically enough, many of the young folks who carry that flag at rallies were Bernie supporters.
The original Antifa they're trying to emulate referred to "social democrats" like Bernie as "social fascists"
Social fascism - Wikipedia
...which "social fascism" was basically a made up concept by Stalin, to portray ideas like those held by Bernie and AOC as "enemies of the working class revolution".
In reality, it was just a threat to Stalinist ideas because it presented a more moderated choice for those who opposed the Nazis and Stalin didn't want the far-left support base to be split.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
