some more discussion of CIA infiltration in anarchist publications here https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2021/10/15/cointelpro-fbi-anarchism-disrupt-left/
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
I don't know any M-Ls that won't admit this when in discussion with other left tendencies (especially when it comes to Spain). I'd like to think Marxists have learned from past mistakes. It'd be nice if anarchists did the same so we could focus on the more immediate picture rather than on historical feuds between different factions a century ago.
Can you give an example? I mean, providing context for a Soviet decision or elaborating on why the USSR did something doesn't necessarily mean someone agrees with it.
What's the difference between rationalising something and insisting on treating it in its historical and political economic context?
I note as an aside that almost every time someone puts the Ukraine war into context, a lib will claim that this must be (uncritical) support for Russia/Putin. But one doesn't necessarily follow the other. (I'm giving libs the benefit of the doubt here, as I don't think most know the difference between critical and uncritical support.)
How does one add nuance if those who've already come to a conclusion reject the nuance as rationalisation (apologia?) for leading to a revised conclusion.