"As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
The DNC and Democratic Leadership must go, this party is dead.
So, you are capable of understanding context right? Like, you can quote something out of context and it have significantly different meaning. Which is what you’re doing.
Do you understand that sentences don’t stand on their own at all times? Or do you think that that sentence you quoted is the equivalent of saying Bernie and Trump are the same?
As “a socialist” you should know that anyone that is in favor of maintaining a capitalist class structure (as Bernie is) would be “considered a right winger”.
Or do you just label yourself as “socialist” while not understanding it? Nothing I’ve said has been “Tankie” if you mean that by “authoritarian left” or whatever. That word has lost all meaning to the point people like you use it to insult anyone “to the left” of you when you have nothing else to say.
Bernie is in favor of maintaining a “nicer” capitalist state and is hence “on the right” from a socialist (like yourself).
It’s not that complicated to understand. But I don’t think you even understand your own political label if you couldn’t understand why I would “consider Bernie a right winger”.
You can’t just contradict yourself and then claim I’m not understanding the context.
Just because someone is to the right of you doesn’t mean they’re a right-winger. You’re doing exactly the thing you’re accusing me of doing.
I know that not everyone to the left of me is a tankie. Unlike you, I’m capable of recognizing that leftism is an entire spectrum.
A tankie is an auth-comm, sure, and maybe you didn’t say anything that was explicitly auth-comm. But you’re insinuating that Bernie Sanders, a leftist, is a right-winger just because he’s not as far left as you are. That’s something that really only a tankie would do.
Can you give me the benefit of the doubt for a moment? Think for a second that “I’ll pretend this guy isn’t an asshole and that maybe I misinterpreted something”. Can you do that? I think you seem to not know what you don’t know. You call yourself a “socialist”. That’s great. I just feel it’s hard to have a conversation with someone that thinks I’m trying to backpeddle or trick you. I’m not. Have some good faith and listen to my example below.
Three people stand in a room. A socialist, a centrist, and capitalist.
The socialist wants classandprivatepropertyto be abolished. They want the surplus labor value to be distributed back to all of society by Democratic means. The means of production should be owned collectively andnot be held asprivatepropertyfor profit.
The Capitalist wants to maintain the current economic systems and give his class tax breaks.
The centrist wants to maintain the current economic systems but thinks we should tax the capitalist more so we can pay for a universal healthcare program.
The "Centrist"isby definition a "right winger". They want to maintain the systems of surplus labor extraction that allow the lifestyle of the capitalist to be maintained using the profits gained from others labor.
This is socialism 101. It isnot weird or wrong tocall the "centrist" a "right winger"in this context. They want to maintain the current economic system andclass hierarchy.
Bernie Sanders would fall into the category of the centrist in this example. This is the perspective in which “some of us would call him a right winger”.
I think you are hearing the label “right winger” as an insult or a label you have an reaction to in a negative way.
For me, in this context, it’s just a means of categorizing this divide. Nothing else.
Hope that clarifies my position. I hope, if you disagree, you can at least take my perspective in good faith. The divide between “the left” and “the right” among socialist is fundamentally based on this divide. “Do you think capitalism and class hierarchy should be ended?”
That’s it. Tons of people fall “left” of that. Anarchist, Marxist, etc.
But it’s a pretty well defined line. And I think if you call yourself a “socialist” you should understand this divide.
I make the mistake of writing my comments to a reader that understands this. I shouldn’t. I should use better language that is more inclusive to understanding this. “Right winger” sounds insulting and wrong to someone that doesn’t classify things this way.
I also made the mistake of being self critical at the end of my comment. But if you make it here I hope you understand.
Okay, maybe I was wrong about you being a tankie, because it does seem like you’re engaging in good faith. That was my bad.
But I still disagree with you. In the current state of US politics, right-winger has a very specific meaning. Republicans are right-wingers, including the very few remaining moderates who maga call “rinos.” Right-wingers are fiscal and social conservatives. Most of the right-wingers in US are quite far to the right, and nearly the entire party is subservient to the alt-right maga agenda, with very few exceptions.
Democrats are the centrists. They call themselves liberals, but most of the establishment Democrats are actually neoliberals, which in reality is fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, many people in the US mistake Democrats for leftist, because relatively speaking, they’re the party that’s further left than the other (though being centrist).
The Democratic Socialists of America or DSA is a caucus within the Democratic party that includes the progressives. They typically oppose the establishment DNC party line on matters of fiscal policy. On the absolute scale, sure, they’re only mildly leftist. But on the relative scale of US politics, they’re the only true leftists in office.
But just because they understand the merits of working within the system for incremental change, doesn’t mean they’re secretly right-wingers. They are left of center.
What you’re describing as “centrists” are social democrats. Common in Europe, including the Nordic Model (which was arguably one of the most successful political experiments in history regarding universal human rights, equal opportunity, and wealth distribution). There are no social democrats in US politics, but if there were they would be on the left of the spectrum.
The problem with choosing an absolute scale over a relative scale is that it’s divorced from reality. It’s an idealization rather than a realization. And the centerpoint is somewhat arbitrary, depending on the lens of the author. It’s theory without practice, an ideological lens without a pragmatic application.
Calling Bernie Sanders a right-winger is just a mental masturbatory armchair exercise for people whose leftier-than-thou attitude prevents them from contributing to any meaningful change in the world.
I don’t think we really disagree much. But I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on categorizing people that are liberal Zionist and also in favor of maintaining capitalism as “not right wing”. Bernie Sanders is both of those things.
You criticize the idea of what “the left” is in the US; basically a creation of two neoliberal parties. Which I agree with. But, you’re kind of conforming to it by not recognizing that Bernie is a right winger on many issues.
The most important issue recently being his Liberal Zionism and constant “Israel has a right to exist”. I’m sorry. But I don’t consider anyone that says that to be “on the left”. No matter how much I might agree with their domestic policies.
If you said “Israel needs a regime change” I would agree with you, but there are people in Israel who were born there, people whose parents were born there, people who don’t have any other citizenship but Israeli. Where do you expect all those people to go if the state of Israel ceases to exist?
You can point to the atrocities surrounding the establishment of the state of Israel, and the continuing atrocities surrounding their settler-expansionism, and you wouldn’t be wrong. Because those are infringements on other people’s territory; territory and people who should have sovereignty.
In an ideal world, the UN and ICC would have teeth and be able to enforce international law to prevent such infringements and atrocities. And every nation would be governed by heads of state and legislative coalitions that respect human rights, and are bound by constitutions which assure human rights are respected, so there would be no need for IGOs to use the teeth that they would have.
But that’s not the world we live in. Yes, Israel’s government commits atrocities and that’s bad. They should be held accountable and replaced by people who don’t do that. But the people who live there, who were born there and don’t have anywhere else to go, have a right to live and be self-determining just like everyone else in the world.
It’s unfortunate that not everyone’s basic rights are respected, and I’m all for holding the people who are responsible for those infringements accountable. But I’m not on board with wiping an entire civilization of people off the map because their leaders are psychopaths, or even because historically their forebears shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
And in case you’re wondering, yes, the same applies to Palestinians. Because they’re people and deserve autonomy, sovereignty, dignity, and self-determinism, just like everyone else.
This might seem a little idealistic, but I don’t believe life has to be a zero-sum game. I believe it’s entirely possible for two nations with a history of conflict to learn to live in peace. It would require a lot of progress, and we currently seem to be going in the wrong direction, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aiming for that goal. Because if we accept the premise that “only one may survive,” then the only way we can go is backwards, and it can only end in the destruction and devastation of one or both nations. So as long as either one is calling for the death and destruction of the other, there can’t really be an ideal outcome.
Leadership change is necessary on both sides, and robust measures put in place with impartial international oversight. Only then, with time the people of both nations can learn to coexist.
Of course, either side would skewer me for not picking a side. Maybe I’m naïve. I’m just not on board with ethnic cleansing, no matter which way it goes.
Palestine is what “Israel” sits on. Israel is the invention of a western colonial project and an apartheid state.
I think it’s odd you think the only solution to undoing the crimes and injustice of Israels formation is to perform a reverse genocide or remigration. Or at least you are hinting and fear mongering at this like your a white person in apartheid South Africa.
No. Israel does not have a right to exist. An apartheid ethnostate does not have a right to exist. A state that has enacted a genocide does not have a right to exist. The power structures of that state need to be destroyed.
I really think it’s odd that you call yourself a “socialist” and can’t understand basic vocabulary have used to describe class and state structures.
This conversation is just getting dull. Because you are consistently jumping to liberal narratives and definitions that are rooted in idealism and not in dialectical materialism. I really think you need to stop calling yourself a socialist or maybe do some reading. You’re just not capable of understanding the vocabulary am using. It’s exhausting having to try to explain what I mean by “a states right to exist” and even what “a state” means when you go off on a tangent about “what will the people living there do”.
It’s clear. They will continue living there under a different state if they so desire. The abolishment of Israel is the abolishment of the apartheid state. The apartheid state IS what Israel is. It always had been. Since it’s formation.
Please go read some Marxist literature if you’re gonna call yourself a “socialist”.
Or at the very least pick up a Norm Finkelstein book to understand some history on Israel.
Yeah. Realized I’m banging my head against the wall. They said Marx was against socialism. Dude is dumb enough to fall for liberals that don’t read not understanding that Marx lived in an era of Utopian vs. Scientific Socialism.
They’re just a liberal Zionist. Definitely why they freaked out over me saying Bernie was.
I think it’s odd you think the only solution to undoing the crimes and injustice of Israels formation is to perform a reverse genocide or remigration.
I don’t think that’s the only solution, but it would be the inevitable result if Israeli citizens suddenly lost the protection of the state. Hamas and other organizations have the declared purpose of exterminating every Israeli. You can’t just expect them to willingly disarm when there are militant organizations that want them all dead. That’s how you get an endless war. It’s not fear mongering, it’s called being in touch with reality.
An apartheid ethnostate does not have a right to exist.
South Africa was reformed and abolished apartheid without dismantling the entire structure of the state.
A state that has enacted a genocide does not have a right to exist.
Nazi Germany ceased to exist, but it was replaced by a constitutional republic. It was still Germany, and no one swept in to exterminate all the ethnic Germans. The same can not be said of what would happen if you suddenly dismantled the state of Israel.
The power structures of that state need to be destroyed.
Yeah, sure, destroy the power structures. If you can do so without exposing the civilian populace to violence and persecution.
I really think it’s odd that you call yourself a “socialist” and can’t understand basic vocabulary have used to describe class and state structures.
I do understand the vocabulary, I just have a different take on it than you based on the fact that 1) Neither side’s civilians deserve to be exterminated, and 2) Israel’s neighbors include militant organizations that want to exterminate them all.
This conversation is just getting dull. Because you are consistently jumping to liberal narratives and definitions that are rooted in idealism and not in dialectical materialism.
If “liberal narrative” means “ethnic cleansing is wrong,” then fuck it I guess that makes me a liberal? I’m against any side arguing for ethnic cleansing. That’s not idealism, that’s basic moral cognition.
You’re just not capable of understanding the vocabulary am using.
I understand it just fine. You’re just assuming that I don’t because that makes it easier to dismiss my arguments without actually engaging with them.
It’s clear. They will continue living there under a different state if they so desire.
It’s clear that Hamas would exterminate every Israeli civilian if the state of Israel suddenly laid down arms. That doesn’t justify what they’re doing in Gaza. Their response has been completely disproportional to the instigating attack. Targeting civilians is a war crime, no matter which side is doing it. What’s so hard to get about that?
Please go read some Marxist literature if you’re gonna call yourself a “socialist”
I’ve read Marx. I like many of his ideas, but I don’t treat it like a fucking bible. I can engage with its critically and have a nuanced take. I can accept some of his premises and conclusions while rejecting others. Because I’m not a campist nor an ideological purist.
Also, Marx wasn’t a socialist. He disparaged socialists. So there’s that.
Good rule of thumb when you hear someone say “it’s clear that”, and then they follow it with a conclusion they present no evidence, it’s a good sign they are full of shit.
Your comment is filled with fear mongering of a theoretical ethnic cleansing in order to defend and maintain a real and existing ethnic cleansing being done by that same state you’re defending the existence of.
You’re entire argument is based in your head and not in material reality. You are not a socialist. You are a liberal Zionist.
A socialist wouldn’t confuse Marx’s criticism of Utopian Social (what I’m assuming you’re referring to) for a criticism of socialism as we use the word today. That is, scientific socialism, that Marx’s life work is entirely based on.
Marx spent his entire life outlining every definition and detail of Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism and how he defined each. It’s just a testament to your lack of reading to make such a simple mistake. Stop reading people that quote Marx out of the massive context of his works and just read Marx. Because it sounds like you’re reading garbage from the right. Like, literally Hitler said Marx perverted the meaning of “socialism” when asked about why the Nazis were the “national socialist”.
Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal… Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property.
You have the same “take” on Marx and socialism as Hitler did. You might want to rethink what you’ve read if you’re siding with Hitler and saying Marx disparaged socialism.
The problem you will have with Marxist (like myself) is that we do not care about the “ideas” in your head anymore then what they promote in material reality. You can feel “good” about making an argument to maintain an apartheid state by saying “well, CLEARLY, the currently oppressed will become the oppressors if we do that”. But all that that “idea” is doing is giving you justification for the current oppression. You are not engaging with an arguing of how to dismantle the apartheid state. You are defending it’s continued existence. And, to a Marxist, that is what is important. It’s how I will “define” you on a left to right spectrum. And in the case of Israel you are clearly “right wing”. No matter how much liberal “thought” you use to justify your defense of it.
All you are doing is searching for a justification for your support of maintaining the oppression that makes you not feel like a supporter of an ethnostate. It’s text book Liberal Zionism. It’s why you can’t see that Bernie Sanders is doing the same thing.
So, you are capable of understanding context right? Like, you can quote something out of context and it have significantly different meaning. Which is what you’re doing.
Do you understand that sentences don’t stand on their own at all times? Or do you think that that sentence you quoted is the equivalent of saying Bernie and Trump are the same?
As “a socialist” you should know that anyone that is in favor of maintaining a capitalist class structure (as Bernie is) would be “considered a right winger”.
Or do you just label yourself as “socialist” while not understanding it? Nothing I’ve said has been “Tankie” if you mean that by “authoritarian left” or whatever. That word has lost all meaning to the point people like you use it to insult anyone “to the left” of you when you have nothing else to say.
Bernie is in favor of maintaining a “nicer” capitalist state and is hence “on the right” from a socialist (like yourself).
It’s not that complicated to understand. But I don’t think you even understand your own political label if you couldn’t understand why I would “consider Bernie a right winger”.
You can’t just contradict yourself and then claim I’m not understanding the context.
Just because someone is to the right of you doesn’t mean they’re a right-winger. You’re doing exactly the thing you’re accusing me of doing.
I know that not everyone to the left of me is a tankie. Unlike you, I’m capable of recognizing that leftism is an entire spectrum.
A tankie is an auth-comm, sure, and maybe you didn’t say anything that was explicitly auth-comm. But you’re insinuating that Bernie Sanders, a leftist, is a right-winger just because he’s not as far left as you are. That’s something that really only a tankie would do.
Fuck, sometimes lemmy is as bad as reddit…
Can you give me the benefit of the doubt for a moment? Think for a second that “I’ll pretend this guy isn’t an asshole and that maybe I misinterpreted something”. Can you do that? I think you seem to not know what you don’t know. You call yourself a “socialist”. That’s great. I just feel it’s hard to have a conversation with someone that thinks I’m trying to backpeddle or trick you. I’m not. Have some good faith and listen to my example below.
Three people stand in a room. A socialist, a centrist, and capitalist. The socialist wants class and private property to be abolished. They want the surplus labor value to be distributed back to all of society by Democratic means. The means of production should be owned collectively and not be held as private property for profit. The Capitalist wants to maintain the current economic systems and give his class tax breaks. The centrist wants to maintain the current economic systems but thinks we should tax the capitalist more so we can pay for a universal healthcare program. The "Centrist" is by definition a "right winger". They want to maintain the systems of surplus labor extraction that allow the lifestyle of the capitalist to be maintained using the profits gained from others labor. This is socialism 101. It is not weird or wrong to call the "centrist" a "right winger" in this context. They want to maintain the current economic system and class hierarchy.Bernie Sanders would fall into the category of the centrist in this example. This is the perspective in which “some of us would call him a right winger”.
I think you are hearing the label “right winger” as an insult or a label you have an reaction to in a negative way.
For me, in this context, it’s just a means of categorizing this divide. Nothing else.
Hope that clarifies my position. I hope, if you disagree, you can at least take my perspective in good faith. The divide between “the left” and “the right” among socialist is fundamentally based on this divide. “Do you think capitalism and class hierarchy should be ended?”
That’s it. Tons of people fall “left” of that. Anarchist, Marxist, etc.
But it’s a pretty well defined line. And I think if you call yourself a “socialist” you should understand this divide.
I make the mistake of writing my comments to a reader that understands this. I shouldn’t. I should use better language that is more inclusive to understanding this. “Right winger” sounds insulting and wrong to someone that doesn’t classify things this way.
I also made the mistake of being self critical at the end of my comment. But if you make it here I hope you understand.
Okay, maybe I was wrong about you being a tankie, because it does seem like you’re engaging in good faith. That was my bad.
But I still disagree with you. In the current state of US politics, right-winger has a very specific meaning. Republicans are right-wingers, including the very few remaining moderates who maga call “rinos.” Right-wingers are fiscal and social conservatives. Most of the right-wingers in US are quite far to the right, and nearly the entire party is subservient to the alt-right maga agenda, with very few exceptions.
Democrats are the centrists. They call themselves liberals, but most of the establishment Democrats are actually neoliberals, which in reality is fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, many people in the US mistake Democrats for leftist, because relatively speaking, they’re the party that’s further left than the other (though being centrist).
The Democratic Socialists of America or DSA is a caucus within the Democratic party that includes the progressives. They typically oppose the establishment DNC party line on matters of fiscal policy. On the absolute scale, sure, they’re only mildly leftist. But on the relative scale of US politics, they’re the only true leftists in office.
But just because they understand the merits of working within the system for incremental change, doesn’t mean they’re secretly right-wingers. They are left of center.
What you’re describing as “centrists” are social democrats. Common in Europe, including the Nordic Model (which was arguably one of the most successful political experiments in history regarding universal human rights, equal opportunity, and wealth distribution). There are no social democrats in US politics, but if there were they would be on the left of the spectrum.
The problem with choosing an absolute scale over a relative scale is that it’s divorced from reality. It’s an idealization rather than a realization. And the centerpoint is somewhat arbitrary, depending on the lens of the author. It’s theory without practice, an ideological lens without a pragmatic application.
Calling Bernie Sanders a right-winger is just a mental masturbatory armchair exercise for people whose leftier-than-thou attitude prevents them from contributing to any meaningful change in the world.
I don’t think we really disagree much. But I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on categorizing people that are liberal Zionist and also in favor of maintaining capitalism as “not right wing”. Bernie Sanders is both of those things.
You criticize the idea of what “the left” is in the US; basically a creation of two neoliberal parties. Which I agree with. But, you’re kind of conforming to it by not recognizing that Bernie is a right winger on many issues.
The most important issue recently being his Liberal Zionism and constant “Israel has a right to exist”. I’m sorry. But I don’t consider anyone that says that to be “on the left”. No matter how much I might agree with their domestic policies.
If you said “Israel needs a regime change” I would agree with you, but there are people in Israel who were born there, people whose parents were born there, people who don’t have any other citizenship but Israeli. Where do you expect all those people to go if the state of Israel ceases to exist?
You can point to the atrocities surrounding the establishment of the state of Israel, and the continuing atrocities surrounding their settler-expansionism, and you wouldn’t be wrong. Because those are infringements on other people’s territory; territory and people who should have sovereignty.
In an ideal world, the UN and ICC would have teeth and be able to enforce international law to prevent such infringements and atrocities. And every nation would be governed by heads of state and legislative coalitions that respect human rights, and are bound by constitutions which assure human rights are respected, so there would be no need for IGOs to use the teeth that they would have.
But that’s not the world we live in. Yes, Israel’s government commits atrocities and that’s bad. They should be held accountable and replaced by people who don’t do that. But the people who live there, who were born there and don’t have anywhere else to go, have a right to live and be self-determining just like everyone else in the world.
It’s unfortunate that not everyone’s basic rights are respected, and I’m all for holding the people who are responsible for those infringements accountable. But I’m not on board with wiping an entire civilization of people off the map because their leaders are psychopaths, or even because historically their forebears shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
And in case you’re wondering, yes, the same applies to Palestinians. Because they’re people and deserve autonomy, sovereignty, dignity, and self-determinism, just like everyone else.
This might seem a little idealistic, but I don’t believe life has to be a zero-sum game. I believe it’s entirely possible for two nations with a history of conflict to learn to live in peace. It would require a lot of progress, and we currently seem to be going in the wrong direction, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aiming for that goal. Because if we accept the premise that “only one may survive,” then the only way we can go is backwards, and it can only end in the destruction and devastation of one or both nations. So as long as either one is calling for the death and destruction of the other, there can’t really be an ideal outcome.
Leadership change is necessary on both sides, and robust measures put in place with impartial international oversight. Only then, with time the people of both nations can learn to coexist.
Of course, either side would skewer me for not picking a side. Maybe I’m naïve. I’m just not on board with ethnic cleansing, no matter which way it goes.
Palestine is what “Israel” sits on. Israel is the invention of a western colonial project and an apartheid state.
I think it’s odd you think the only solution to undoing the crimes and injustice of Israels formation is to perform a reverse genocide or remigration. Or at least you are hinting and fear mongering at this like your a white person in apartheid South Africa.
No. Israel does not have a right to exist. An apartheid ethnostate does not have a right to exist. A state that has enacted a genocide does not have a right to exist. The power structures of that state need to be destroyed.
I really think it’s odd that you call yourself a “socialist” and can’t understand basic vocabulary have used to describe class and state structures.
This conversation is just getting dull. Because you are consistently jumping to liberal narratives and definitions that are rooted in idealism and not in dialectical materialism. I really think you need to stop calling yourself a socialist or maybe do some reading. You’re just not capable of understanding the vocabulary am using. It’s exhausting having to try to explain what I mean by “a states right to exist” and even what “a state” means when you go off on a tangent about “what will the people living there do”.
It’s clear. They will continue living there under a different state if they so desire. The abolishment of Israel is the abolishment of the apartheid state. The apartheid state IS what Israel is. It always had been. Since it’s formation.
Please go read some Marxist literature if you’re gonna call yourself a “socialist”.
Or at the very least pick up a Norm Finkelstein book to understand some history on Israel.
He’s a braindead liberal. Looks at his comment history, be goes around justifying wars and genocides and calls himself a socialist.
Yeah. Realized I’m banging my head against the wall. They said Marx was against socialism. Dude is dumb enough to fall for liberals that don’t read not understanding that Marx lived in an era of Utopian vs. Scientific Socialism.
They’re just a liberal Zionist. Definitely why they freaked out over me saying Bernie was.
I don’t think that’s the only solution, but it would be the inevitable result if Israeli citizens suddenly lost the protection of the state. Hamas and other organizations have the declared purpose of exterminating every Israeli. You can’t just expect them to willingly disarm when there are militant organizations that want them all dead. That’s how you get an endless war. It’s not fear mongering, it’s called being in touch with reality.
South Africa was reformed and abolished apartheid without dismantling the entire structure of the state.
Nazi Germany ceased to exist, but it was replaced by a constitutional republic. It was still Germany, and no one swept in to exterminate all the ethnic Germans. The same can not be said of what would happen if you suddenly dismantled the state of Israel.
Yeah, sure, destroy the power structures. If you can do so without exposing the civilian populace to violence and persecution.
I do understand the vocabulary, I just have a different take on it than you based on the fact that 1) Neither side’s civilians deserve to be exterminated, and 2) Israel’s neighbors include militant organizations that want to exterminate them all.
If “liberal narrative” means “ethnic cleansing is wrong,” then fuck it I guess that makes me a liberal? I’m against any side arguing for ethnic cleansing. That’s not idealism, that’s basic moral cognition.
I understand it just fine. You’re just assuming that I don’t because that makes it easier to dismiss my arguments without actually engaging with them.
It’s clear that Hamas would exterminate every Israeli civilian if the state of Israel suddenly laid down arms. That doesn’t justify what they’re doing in Gaza. Their response has been completely disproportional to the instigating attack. Targeting civilians is a war crime, no matter which side is doing it. What’s so hard to get about that?
I’ve read Marx. I like many of his ideas, but I don’t treat it like a fucking bible. I can engage with its critically and have a nuanced take. I can accept some of his premises and conclusions while rejecting others. Because I’m not a campist nor an ideological purist.
Also, Marx wasn’t a socialist. He disparaged socialists. So there’s that.
Good rule of thumb when you hear someone say “it’s clear that”, and then they follow it with a conclusion they present no evidence, it’s a good sign they are full of shit.
Your comment is filled with fear mongering of a theoretical ethnic cleansing in order to defend and maintain a real and existing ethnic cleansing being done by that same state you’re defending the existence of.
You’re entire argument is based in your head and not in material reality. You are not a socialist. You are a liberal Zionist.
A socialist wouldn’t confuse Marx’s criticism of Utopian Social (what I’m assuming you’re referring to) for a criticism of socialism as we use the word today. That is, scientific socialism, that Marx’s life work is entirely based on.
Marx spent his entire life outlining every definition and detail of Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism and how he defined each. It’s just a testament to your lack of reading to make such a simple mistake. Stop reading people that quote Marx out of the massive context of his works and just read Marx. Because it sounds like you’re reading garbage from the right. Like, literally Hitler said Marx perverted the meaning of “socialism” when asked about why the Nazis were the “national socialist”.
You have the same “take” on Marx and socialism as Hitler did. You might want to rethink what you’ve read if you’re siding with Hitler and saying Marx disparaged socialism.
The problem you will have with Marxist (like myself) is that we do not care about the “ideas” in your head anymore then what they promote in material reality. You can feel “good” about making an argument to maintain an apartheid state by saying “well, CLEARLY, the currently oppressed will become the oppressors if we do that”. But all that that “idea” is doing is giving you justification for the current oppression. You are not engaging with an arguing of how to dismantle the apartheid state. You are defending it’s continued existence. And, to a Marxist, that is what is important. It’s how I will “define” you on a left to right spectrum. And in the case of Israel you are clearly “right wing”. No matter how much liberal “thought” you use to justify your defense of it.
All you are doing is searching for a justification for your support of maintaining the oppression that makes you not feel like a supporter of an ethnostate. It’s text book Liberal Zionism. It’s why you can’t see that Bernie Sanders is doing the same thing.