If only they actually meant that. Seems they forgot that they use nothing but superlatives when it comes to crimes they now politicially benefit from, like holocaust. Should I provide quotes? But yes Afd makes the same argument for holocaust, go figure.
gorikan
joined 2 years ago
He did find out, having nukes was the sigle most peaceful and benevolent policy to have. saved entire north from another extermination campain like in the 50s
If we were to look at basic leftist theory they always regard liberals as non left. The argument is that liberals just protect the liberties of the priviledged class, typically the wealth owning class. They treat the workers like wage slaves, throwing them a bone to keep them quiet, but when historically being forced to choose between having the workers attain same level of liberties, the liberals always chose to surpress that, break unions or even multiple times directly allow fascist overtake.
you are right that in us this is presented as opposition, but any serious leftist will categorically deny that as absurd. One good indicator is for example how the genocide in gaza is bipartizan or even the war in iran. They protect same interests. They do not serve the voter.
Hey there heres a basic reading list—time to stop embarrassing yourself in the comments:
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
Capital (Volume 1) by Karl Marx
State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin
Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg
Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin
No excuses! You'll thank me later.
I dont see this as black and white at all. What alternative is there to un? Now dont get me wrong, the real role of un and the one it ought to have have little in common, but still I wouldnt argue for its end, now that it could help against israel, in whatever small way it can. Also idk why should it become better for states outside of global north, I dont see any indication.
the overthrow in syria in my view didnt install a democratic or popular socialist, or in fact a democratic popular leader per say. President is a former islamist militia commander. Meanwhile while the state deals with secrarian violence between alawites christians kurds druze, israel has expanded settlements in golan and does now regular strikes even further into syrian territory. framing potential iran or syria as socialist is just marketing, it shows no connection to either of the situations there. thats why i asked. If this is the sort of freedom you are "neutral" on then we disagree. in syria the popularity cannot even be argued on the same grounds because it wasnt toppled through uprising.
in iran the protests were followed by orders larger pro gvmt anti foreign influence ones. I can give source its on craddle for example. Also notice how the revolution against shah is different, point me to significant backing of it by foreign power. That was grassroots, this one has mossad and cia all over it
No it just seems to me that you dont support the syrian govenment. Did you even support the previous overthrow?
Well the governmemt there war overthrown with israeli and us support. So the syrian people are finally free no? I dont know, it doesnt seem socialist or even better for that matter to me.
Ah sorry, i was asking whats wrong with syrian socialism.
Tell me when you address one of my points.
view more: next ›
Exaclty thats why we condemn Iran for defending itself, and for being attacked. Also of course the actions of Israel are only problematic, we have to watch the genocide from afar, then decide if it was just. Ah the shamelessness. Meanwhile lets host as many of their war criminals as possible.