The left's main vulnerability is splitting and infighting. We are terrible at it. This is known.
To build revolutionary change, a revolutionary party is needed. It must do its work and carry on its work. In the military, they taught me that the number one priority is preserving your ability to fight. It's ok if you have setbacks, lose equipment or men or tactical position or advantage; but it's a catastrophe if you lose the capacity to fight.
Leftist infighting is what robs the movement of its ability to fight on. It kills the movements. (The Buddhists know this, and consider 'creating a schism in the sangha' the supreme sin. That's a tangent, but the Buddhists have maintained an ideological movement for 26 centuries so they're doing something right.)
We need to mock people who shame other leftists for impurity, who insult them for making mistakes. Liu Shaoqi said: "The attitude of some Party members towards these shortcomings and mistakes and towards those comrades who have incorrect ideas is one of “bitter hatred and gall”. They lightly sever all relations with comrades who have committed some mistake and whom they attempt to expel from the Party outright."
It is ok for comrades to make mistakes in action, and to have mistaken beliefs. That's the completely normal, inevitable part of having a movement. In fact, that's all a movement is: listening to people's beliefs, listening to their wrong beliefs, correcting them, unifying the thought of the party, unity makes strength. It is not ok to have incorrect ideas of “bitter hatred and gall”, and lightly sever all relations with comrades who have committed some mistake.
MAO MADE 30% MISTAKES, INCLUDING CAUSING THE BIGGEST FAMINE IN HUMAN HISTORY!!! If you can forgive that, you can forgive someone who made an off-colour tweet when they were a teenager.
People who try to cancel comrades for stuff they did/said in the distant past, or for non-core differences of opinion, are dong the imperialists work for them: dismantling the socialist movement.
PS: the aim is always to have a cohesive, united, strong movement with the correct views. Anything that serves the aim is good. Anything that wrecks the aim is bad.
I do not care if someone is "good" or even a socialist. I care if their actions will contribute to our aid socialism. I don't care if Norman Finkelstein is transphobic. I don't care what George Galloway said about this, that, or the other thing. I don't care what any historical figure said about gay people. If they work to contribute to socialism, they are a comrade.
What the fuck are you talking about, your other comment is about outdoor cats, now you talk about transphobia as if both are remotely the same thing. You have zero credibility if that is how you see the world.
Building socialism by supporting opinions that directly harm the people you want to help. The most generous take here is you're completely lost.
They aren't. That's why they are two different comments. If I wanted to compare them, they would be one comment instead of two.
You must be joking,seriously there is no way this is your argument lol.
Imagine one comment
"I wish global leftists would focus on material issues since we tend to agree 99% of the time"
and another comment
"You know I don't think nazism, white supremacy, xenophobia or transphobia are not particularly relevant issues, so long as they're helping to build communism I'm fine with any of that".
Would you see that user as a clown or not? You literaly undermine the premise of the first one, what exactly is the 1% if not any of these things? Jesus take your head of your ass lol.
My assumption, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if not. Is that she's saying specific opinions and soundbites aren't as relevant as actions.
If a person's actions are actively building a better world for minorities (eg gommunism), then I'd argue you're fairly justified in working with them as a comrade, despite any stupid wrong beliefs about minorities they may have. The focus on material issues is about building a better world, without first necessitating everyone has 100% correct beliefs.
😳
would you care if he were racist or misogynistic? where is the line?
Norman's use is his academic work and knowledge about the history of Palestine. Once his other beliefs start to become more known or overshadow his usefulness, that becomes a problem. However, as it stands, his most know and most widely published content is on Palestine and is helpful. For someone who serves as a knowledge base on Palestine, the line where he becomes counterproductive would be Zionism.
🥰