This is complete bullshit. Unhinged stupidity.

Id try it out for sure. Do I need to get a new Huawei phone?

“Sending”

Not everyone has the stomach for yet another bloody revolution.

But seeing Palestinians die is fine? I don’t think the lack of bloodlust is the issue at all.

There is nothing radical about what dude did.

You took Trump at his word about NATO. Do you also believe he is anti-war? You gonna block me?

He is a Zionist and engages in partisan discourse within zionism. He is only critical of who is empowering the Zionist state. He still supports the project, and you agree he does. Being accepting of it absolutely makes him a Zionist. Isreal does not have the right to exist.

Bernie is a Zionist.

I think it is fair to say that it has not been properly conceptualized or theorized. However, solidarity with the global south and well articulated anti imperial politics will be vital.

I think of how unionization is having an upturn in the US. For example, Starbucks now has a union. Generally, this is a good thing for Starbucks workers. However, as revolutionaries we have to think globally and ask ourselves what does it all mean for solidarity with coffee farmers. Is there a way to include more workers in our movements? Is there a way to link labor movements with anti-imperialist political movements? There would almost certainly be legal barriers, but still we must answer this.

There also needs to be a reckoning for metropolitan workers, laboring settlers, and white people. We must understand our social relations and we must face up to the fact that we have not always been helpful in building and maintaining solidarity and this is largely because we have played a key role in empire building. Perhaps then we can correct our course.

I also think there is a tendency for anti imperialism to only organize around the low hanging fruit. It is good that we support Palestine in official capacity, or in the streets, or online. However, we never ask how we can support anti imperialism at the bargaining table, with our labor, or by withholding our labor. Further, we are even less willing to take risks for banana farmers, than we are for Palestinians resisting genocide, but both are important.

We have to be willing to potentially ignore our own needs and take risks that show real solidarity. If we stand against land grabs, unequal exchange, dependency, and imperial aggression, we have to recognize that we are likely disqualifing ourselves from healthcare reforms in the near future. Maybe it won’t necessarily actually mean such dire risks in reality, but we must be prepared for them. Instead, I’m afraid much of the left has gone that way because they believe it should be a simple matter of correcting wealth distribution. If we can problematize our reliance on imperial spoils (which the relevant thesis effectively does) we may be able to shift our collective consciousness toward something better, for our own sake and for others. Reliance on slavery is no real form of dignified sovereignty if you ask me. Maybe others can agree.

Finally, since there is rarely a willingness to take a risk or go further than leftist profile building, I feel that we are exploiting the Palestinian cause to build and solidify coalitions at home which will only help ourselves at the end of the day. I think this is a faux anti-imperialism, a fake solidarity, that must be addressed as well.

I have on more than one occasion seen westerns outright say that they don’t want to fight against imperialism because they benefit from it. I think that’s how a lot of westerners justify supporting imperialism. This kind of narrative ironically cements the power of imperialism.

This is evidence that the thesis is correct. Revolutionary movements are unlikely because of the relationship with imperialism, whether conscious or not. If admitting this works against us, then there is no project to build. We MUST admit this if we are to eventually succeed where others have failed. If the problem with the thesis is that it makes things harder to articulate with our routine rhetoric, then the problem is denial.

Not sure if this is what you mean but I tend to spend a lot of time online responding to right wingers. I usually target when they are attempting to be critical of liberalism and frustrate the narrative. I usually take a hard stance and am ruthless in exposing their ignorance of, for example, feminist discourse. I want them to know why I think they are worse than fools. Part of how I left being a reactionary is realising that much of the narrative was based on disengenous interpretations so I double down on that.

So if someone is bemoaning that everything bad that happens to women is their fault, and that it is not studied that women hurt each other because of feminist propaganda and obsession with patriarchy, I explain that feminists have been talking about the role of women in patriarchy for decades. Litterally, every waking moment of their life has been an opportunity to learn this, yet they prefer to shit in their hand and smear it all over instead of taking their education seriously. It is wildly undignified, completely unworthy of respect to say something so demonstrably false just to demonize women. There is no excuse. My hope is that it may illuminate that they think with ideology too much and that their ridiculous conservative identity might be holding them back and making them a fool.

Honestly, however, I don’t think it’s very effective and is sort of a gamble. Potentially, it is an information hazard. The right has been coopting “left wing” talking points at a higher clip than they were 10 years ago and I feel like using discourse can end up hurting more than it helps. We need something more than discourse to go along with it imo. When I turned, I also had lost faith in everything I knew. It was more than just persuasive talking points or stirn instructions.

Exactly. But the problem is that zionism isn’t going to be addressed and if the Palestinian state is recognized it will likley not be properly supported, which will create neocolonial relations. Colonial relations develop this way routinely. So it must be asked, who is going to deal with zionism and when?

The two state solution per se isn’t the problem, nor is a plan for phases of decolonization. Rather it is the asymmetric power being tilted to the zionists largely because of decades of international and US support. The fallacy we risk in seeing this in stages is that we imagine an ideal transition despite history showing how quickly it can just develop into neocolonialism with all options exhausted. The occupiers will inevitably be back in control of Palestine with new justifications and the international community will support it yet again.

We can’t “undo” history, but we absolutely can and must undo settler-colonial relations and structures for a two state solution to even be tenable. But at that point, what really is the point of sticking to a two state solution? Other solutions may present themselves as these toxic relations are excised.

Ultimately, it not our decision what is done with those who occupy Palestinian land but it is worth noting that expelling settlers is no more a genocide than any other form of decolonization is(nt). Framing it this way only gives credibility to zionism and makes settlers out to have no agency or self awareness. If we can’t stomach the thought of erasing zionist structures like the state of Isreal and the settler-colonial structures that reproduce it, then we should exit the discussion altogether.

It’s worth noting that it’s the only solution because the international community isn’t going to challenge the US and its colony. The so-believed lack of options is a product of neocolonial relations that are baked into the fabric of the society of states. China has chained itself to this structure for its own purposes and thus their position on Palestine is not holistic or robust beyond those purposes. The two state solution is not a sovereign solution, it is not a just solution, regardless of how “realistic” it is or who is supporting it. Borders are not the problem. The occupiers are.

Plural thinking is not easy to do but Hakim is an intelligent person. That people are always looking to police each other over things like this is so tiring. If we can’t stand with Muslims right now when it’s basically 2001 all over again then we leave no choice but for people like Hakim to look at us and realize the truth, “they are who we thought they were.”

He is a Muslim first and a Marxist second.

You’re goddamn right. Islam is racialized. He has no choice, especially when Marxists won’t even give him respectful breathing room.

It’s a pipeline of consumerism and wealthy debatebros that is deeply intertwined with tech-media corps and relies on donations from impressionable people. It’s all branding and discourse at the marketplace of ideas.

Lmao I’m literally saying what women in my own community are telling me. Not everyone agrees with you.

It’s not a zero sum game.

Im sure you are extatic to have so many bodies made free to you with market forces. You get to pearl clutch about swerfs as well. Pretty nice deal for you.

Rape culture isn’t honorable.

Instead they have spent the last few years sueing to keep the green party off of ballots lol