Cowards.

What is meant by identity politics here? I feel like this term is so nebulous as to be almost meaningless.

Maybe, maybe not. That’s an untested theory. Though I do think communists tend to overstate the power and influence of the CIA and other western sabotage. They certainly had an influence but they were not solely responsible for every single domestic problem the PRC and USSR had. Many were clearly attributable to their own policy decisions.

Classic reactionary take, now we must fight to the death.

Doesn’t this also include airports or did I get that wrong?

Maybe I’m too dumb to get it lol

Who gives a shit. Marx is dead. He doesn’t have any opinions on what’s happening today. Maybe we should stand up for our own opinions instead of wildly speculating that a dead man would agree with us?

Ironically from the messages Vance seemed opposed but he was too chickenshit to say so outright.

Because the economic conditions of the modern world allow for tyranny and the people haven’t figured out that we need to unite and overthrow the tyrants to build a better society.

I’m afraid not.

Truth, justice, and the American way!

I’m saying the reason people might get called a tankie is not because they support Gaza. In fact, I’ve never seen that accusation in relation to this conflict. Rather, it’s because tankies support countries like Israel in other conflicts. So it’s almost the exact opposite of what you say. Campism is the problem here because it forces them to defend the indefensible.

By the way, tankie is not just a pejorative for leftist. It’s a term created by leftists to criticize members of the movement who are perceived to have abandoned the core goal of human liberation that being a leftist has always been about. Maybe some liberals use it wrongly sometimes but it was never about them.

You seem confused. People get called tankies for being in favor of the guys with the tanks, not the ones being blown up by them.

Your tax dollars at work! Do we need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure? Nah we need to save that money to tear down what little we have.

So you think people just happened to decide on a narrow range of positions that are highly convenient to the ruling powers in society?

Modern propagandists have realized it doesn’t matter if the truth is out there—you just need to make your narrative the loudest, most available, algorithmically boosted option and most people won’t put in the effort to question what you put in front of them.

Free will is an illusion and this completely ignores the near monopoly they have on the media and information people are exposed to.

Also, this isn’t saying they cause all problems, just a lot of them in our current society.

But that never happened. We never decided that. No one even asked me. Again, I never opted in and there’s no realistic way to opt out. I’m far more afraid of the state than I am from my neighbors, and if I had a real choice, I would opt out immediately.

I think there can sometimes be tension between these two ideals, as with any two disparate goals but I think they are often more aligned than people think. Freedom from terror and violence is an important freedom as well.

Social contract theory is statist propaganda. Even before I knew anything about politics or political theory I was so confused by this idea.

It’s just there to create an illusion of consent for state oppression. Even though there’s no realistic way to opt out, and we never even decided to opt in in the first place.

What kind of crazy contract is that?

People seem upset about this. I’m over here wondering wtf is an echo?