cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7804222
You can tell this is fake because the USA soldier would shoot the child as well
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7804222
You can tell this is fake because the USA soldier would shoot the child as well
And surely no “leftist” is going to get incredibly mad when I say:
“Authority breeds violence. Death to all authority, states being the best example of them. Death to states, of which the US is the most powerful and most destructive.”
I’m sure no “leftist” is instead going to propose creation of a “leftist state”, employ exsoldiers of the previous capitalist state and then justify war crimes by those soldiers under the name of “liberation”.
How will you make the states dead without authority?
Not possible. However, progressive erosion of authority is essential. So many MLs here like to defend authoritarianism by their favorite parties in situations where it went against the publicly believed goals of the revolution(s).
This is a left unity comm, not an anarchist comm. Different opinions on the nature and purpose of the state are allowed and expected.
“Red bourgeoisie are better than blue bourgeoisie” is contradictory with the goal of achieving a stateless, classless society.
So I’m not against what you’re saying (and maybe I’m taking the bate here) but are you implying anarchy is the only way to be free? If so, why use the term “leftist” at all, as it encompasses many ideologies, of which anarchism is one?
Existence of authority is a direct contradiction of freedom. So anything except for total anarchy = not complete freedom.
That being said, complete anarchy is akin to machine with 100% efficiency. Amazing, but very difficult (almost impossible) to make. So do I believe that we must start by blowing up all forms of authority on day one? No. Many anarchists that I’ve met believe this. Most I’ve met reject the idea of democracy (again, because it’s the majority “ruling” over the minority). This is why I won’t call myself an anarchist.
I don’t associate with any leftist subgroups enough that I would want to associate with them. Sure, I feel ideologically closer to some than others, but again, not enough to consider myself part of them. This is the explanation for my usage of the broad term “leftist”.
Also, i was responding to the comment above, attempting to mirror their comment to convey my message. The above commentator was very likely a ML. I’ve observed these folk on Lemmy to have a habit of criticising imperialism, greed, warmongering and so on when the countries they hate do it, but absolutely cheering it on when the reds do it. It’s really annoying, that’s all.