Opinion of "True Leftists"

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Pretty disgusting ideology. They seem to support a new murderous dictator or genocidal terror group every month, have little regard for the human rights of non-Westerners, and oppose policies that actually help the Western workers they care about because the policies are not perfectly socialist or whatever.

As opposed to blindly supporting Western imperialism? Unlike you I don't believe in a modern-day white man's burden.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Pretty disgusting ideology. They seem to support a new murderous dictator or genocidal terror group every month, have little regard for the human rights of non-Westerners, and oppose policies that actually help the Western workers they care about because the policies are not perfectly socialist or whatever.

As opposed to blindly supporting Western imperialism? Unlike you I don't believe in a modern-day white man's burden.

As if opposing dictatorships equates to imperialism.

Which is why American neoliberals bravely stand against Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Burma, Equatorial Guinea, etc.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

"Well we're not opposing all dictatorships, so might as well not oppose any of them."

^^^Literally True Leftist "logic."

It's cute that you think that "protecting human rights" or "spreading democracy" has anything to do with our motives for Middle Eastern intervention.

The nirvana fallacy made human.

Marxism is purely scientific, not idealistic.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

"Well we're not opposing all dictatorships, so might as well not oppose any of them."

^^^Literally True Leftist "logic."

It's cute that you think that "protecting human rights" or "spreading democracy" has anything to do with our motives for Middle Eastern intervention.

The people ISIS is raping, murdering, and enslaving don't give a fuçk what our motives are.

ISIS has gained a huge number of recruits since bombing began. Best provide humanitarian aid and maybe arm the Kurds. Regardless of whether the US bombing effort destroys ISIS (which I highly doubt), the underlying causes of the sectarian conflicts in Syria and Iraq are being palliated at best, much like the heavy-handed and utterly unaware US bombings of Libya and Serbia in the past.

And I think it's worth mentioning that every reform in American history can be traced to the organizing efforts (and the bourgeois's fear of revolution) of "True Leftists". Of course, liberal revisionists think that Roosevelt and Johnson simply dropped programs from the sky.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

"Well we're not opposing all dictatorships, so might as well not oppose any of them."

^^^Literally True Leftist "logic."

It's cute that you think that "protecting human rights" or "spreading democracy" has anything to do with our motives for Middle Eastern intervention.

The people ISIS is raping, murdering, and enslaving don't give a fuçk what our motives are.

ISIS has gained a huge number of recruits since bombing began. Best provide humanitarian aid and maybe arm the Kurds. Regardless of whether the US bombing effort destroys ISIS (which I highly doubt), the underlying causes of the sectarian conflicts in Syria and Iraq are being palliated at best, much like the heavy-handed and utterly unaware US bombings of Libya and Serbia in the past.

And I think it's worth mentioning that every reform in American history can be traced to the organizing efforts (and the bourgeois's fear of revolution) of "True Leftists". Of course, liberal revisionists think that Roosevelt and Johnson simply dropped programs from the sky.

And had Roosevelt/Johnson and Congress listened to True Leftist legislative "strategy", all those programs and reforms would've been trashed for not being pure enough. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is a crucial aspect of True Leftist ideology.

No, the point is that all those social programs were deliberate (and in FDR's case explicit) attempts to preserve the fundamental status quo. Similarly I am not deluded enough to think that the Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same--but once you cut out most of the semantic arguments and most of the posturing, they're not too far apart. This is why "working within the Democratic Party" or "voting for the lesser of two evils" has been such a failed strategy for so long--you cannot change a party whose fundamental purpose is to protect society's elites. I'd like to peddle this blog post by one of our posters for further reading.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The Tea Party does not advocate a fundamental shift of the existing social order.