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
I’ve worked out a complex dialectical framework with some comrades of mine that we apply in order to carry out the most precise and useful critical support:
You think this framework would be easy to follow but I keep running into people who believe if you say something is bad that means you’re trying to say that the person is bad, where if you say something is good then that means you’re trying to say the person is good.
And, obviously, all moral criticism is then directed at the immutable essence of the human soul which we all know is either good or bad ontologically. And anyone you like is a reflection of your own soul, which is ontologically and inherently good or bad.
That’s not everyone obviously but it’s enough people to be too many and it drives me nuts imo.
Yeah the constant conversation about DPRK or the USSR devolving into people using vague hypotheticals to try and essentially say “did you consider that human nature makes the soul of the country rotten?” is like the permanent, protestant-fatalism-brained argument that drives me up a wall.
Or certain people saying “well states are bad” like, no these are methods of organization and constructs that exist between the actions millions of people, you can’t essentialize those things. It’s like the same vibe as when Americans monolith foreign countries because they’re somehow unable to imagine they have political parties.
This isn’t bad, but you need some way to predict what people will do in the future. Will the stick by what they said they’ll do, or backtrack when it comes time to take action? If something new comes up, or some background issue springs to the foreground, how will they respond?
I remember the good and bad things they did in their past and the pattern of things people in positions similar to theirs throughout history. I call this dialectical goodbadism.
When he does shit we like and it’s effective, we can highlight the effectiveness of social programs and our other policy objectives.
When he does shit we like and is hamstrung by the bourgeois system he operates inside, we can highlight how democratic socialism will always be hamstrung in this way and that demsocs will never be able to fully oppose capital.
When he does shit we don’t like, we can highlight how demsocs will always trend towards capitulation to capital in attempts to be “pragmatic” or bolster their position within the bourgeois system.
Obviously, no one here should believe in him or demsoc entryism, but we can and should laud him in ways useful to us. We should defend him against attacks that also fall on us. We should denounce demsocery, entryism, and his capitulations to capital.
This is unironically the Hasan position. Whenever zohran wins, it makes our life easier. When he does dumb shit we critique. We win either way, but he’s much more useful than a reactionary because in his successes we can point to evidence for the kind of world we want to make.
P.S. he makes reactionaries furious, which is a fun bonus as a treat.
Link me to a single post on here where someone unironically praises those two and “drags” Mamdani. Give me a username. Anything.
It doesn’t exist. Not a single comment in that 100+ comment thread has anything that can even be remotely construed as being “critical support for Tucker Carlson.”
Next time I see it I’ll tag you if I can remember I guess. I’m not so criminally online that I chase and harass other users on the site like some folks here do
Oh, so you don’t remember anything about the context? You said this happens “often”, so like anything? What was the criticism? How did they make it clear they were relying on reactionaries for their arguments? Can you tell me anything about the MTG and Carlson lovers you come across on here often?
I’m not? I just haven’t ever seen this, and I doubt that there’s a big group of secret right wingers quoting them here. I could be wrong, so I’m asking for any bit of information on this thing you’re saying happens a lot.
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
I’ve worked out a complex dialectical framework with some comrades of mine that we apply in order to carry out the most precise and useful critical support:
IF the action taken is good; THEN I support it
IF the action taken is bad; THEN I criticize it
I think the overall problem is that we often highlight the good actions of fascists, and highlight the mistakes of the American soft left
You think this framework would be easy to follow but I keep running into people who believe if you say something is bad that means you’re trying to say that the person is bad, where if you say something is good then that means you’re trying to say the person is good.
And, obviously, all moral criticism is then directed at the immutable essence of the human soul which we all know is either good or bad ontologically. And anyone you like is a reflection of your own soul, which is ontologically and inherently good or bad.
That’s not everyone obviously but it’s enough people to be too many and it drives me nuts imo.
It’s also how people view states!
Yeah the constant conversation about DPRK or the USSR devolving into people using vague hypotheticals to try and essentially say “did you consider that human nature makes the soul of the country rotten?” is like the permanent, protestant-fatalism-brained argument that drives me up a wall.
Or certain people saying “well states are bad” like, no these are methods of organization and constructs that exist between the actions millions of people, you can’t essentialize those things. It’s like the same vibe as when Americans monolith foreign countries because they’re somehow unable to imagine they have political parties.
This isn’t bad, but you need some way to predict what people will do in the future. Will the stick by what they said they’ll do, or backtrack when it comes time to take action? If something new comes up, or some background issue springs to the foreground, how will they respond?
I remember the good and bad things they did in their past and the pattern of things people in positions similar to theirs throughout history. I call this dialectical goodbadism.
We desperately need a 2 hour podcast on dialectical goodbadism
Mamdani is useful to us.
When he does shit we like and it’s effective, we can highlight the effectiveness of social programs and our other policy objectives.
When he does shit we like and is hamstrung by the bourgeois system he operates inside, we can highlight how democratic socialism will always be hamstrung in this way and that demsocs will never be able to fully oppose capital.
When he does shit we don’t like, we can highlight how demsocs will always trend towards capitulation to capital in attempts to be “pragmatic” or bolster their position within the bourgeois system.
Obviously, no one here should believe in him or demsoc entryism, but we can and should laud him in ways useful to us. We should defend him against attacks that also fall on us. We should denounce demsocery, entryism, and his capitulations to capital.
Figure out your audience and operate accordingly.
This is unironically the Hasan position. Whenever zohran wins, it makes our life easier. When he does dumb shit we critique. We win either way, but he’s much more useful than a reactionary because in his successes we can point to evidence for the kind of world we want to make.
P.S. he makes reactionaries furious, which is a fun bonus as a treat.
Funny because I see Hasan in the same way. Hasan at least has the gumption to praise AES from time to time.
Link me to a single post on here where someone unironically praises those two and “drags” Mamdani. Give me a username. Anything.
It doesn’t exist. Not a single comment in that 100+ comment thread has anything that can even be remotely construed as being “critical support for Tucker Carlson.”
Next time I see it I’ll tag you if I can remember I guess. I’m not so criminally online that I chase and harass other users on the site like some folks here do
Oh, so you don’t remember anything about the context? You said this happens “often”, so like anything? What was the criticism? How did they make it clear they were relying on reactionaries for their arguments? Can you tell me anything about the MTG and Carlson lovers you come across on here often?
Why are you suddenly attacking me
I’m not? I just haven’t ever seen this, and I doubt that there’s a big group of secret right wingers quoting them here. I could be wrong, so I’m asking for any bit of information on this thing you’re saying happens a lot.
critical support for this post (it’s a GOOD post)
those people are joking
Unfortunately I think those people are serious and it’s a big problem
well they aren’t