politics

I was extremely polite in that lemm.ee thread, admitted we could stand to tone it down a bit, even called out a rude post from one of our own, and I only got hostility from them in response. There's literally nothing we can do to not be called wreckers

you shouldn't want to save the west

As of 2017, I was watching Chris Hayes every night. People can change their minds. A lot of the libs we see here are just hall monitor types.

Eh, this take is axiomatically unacceptable to me. Regardless of how absurd and hopeless it feels like achieving our aims in Western 'democracies' (and boy howdy does it feel absurd and hopeless), the abandonment of it is a tacit admission that billions of people are gonna need to die in rather catastrophic fashions before we get anywhere. Which, like I said, is a no go for me.

Does this mean you're going to defederate again? Please let it mean that.

What thoughtful responses? Also what does "the West" need to be saved from?

I agree that the most revolutionary potential lies in the global south. Hopefully, more gains can be made through partnerships with China, particularly as the US position geopolitically seems likely to weaken. Even now the US seems only able to accomplish relatively short term gains while setting themselves up for longterm defeats (the proxy war in Ukraine dwmonstrates this).

Its not surprising that revolutionary potential, and the possibility of real gains is higher on the periphery than within the imperial core. I think a lot of western leftists deal with brainworms (for understandable reasons) the the West is the main character of history, so the revolution must happen here and lead the world. There's over a centuries worth of evidence to the contrary.

I say its understandable because its a less extreme version of the classic "left" liberal brainworm of "the US may be bad, but [target country] is worse." Its also seen throughout left anti-communism's stance and critiscims against AES. The unexamined assumption that the nations of the imperial core will be the leaders of the socialist revolution as opposed ro the last and most dangerous holdouts of a dying imperial order, is, i think, the last vestige of this way of thinking.

This isn't, and I'm not endorsing, a doomerist position for communists in the imperial core. A better world is possible, and we should do what we can to defend our comrades at home from rising fascism and support our comrades abroad on the periphery. Not being the "main character" does mean there is no role to play. Revolution is like an Eisenstein film, the people, the class, are the main character and we are united across boarders

It's frustrating, I agree. But "shitposting leftie site interacts with some other echo chambers for a week and has some non-constructive disagreements" is not really a datum from which to draw any wider conclusions.

Personally, I've seen at least five users on separate occasions ask questions in good faith and concede points. If anything I've been surprised by some of the positive responses to our community, rather than being 100% rebuffed from the get-go.

It's fine, I think some comrades here don't remember how long it took for them to snap out of the capitalist worldview. Going through a naive stage of anti-AES pro-West Progressivism/Reformism/Anarchism/Trotskyism/Leftcom is pretty normal for new members of the left, as is a later sudden uncritical swing to being an ML followed by backsliding because it wasn't based on theoretical understanding.

Eventually if we work on them, a lot of the people there will settle into more mature examples of whatever tendency provides the tools they need in their conditions.