this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Communism101
1366 readers
1 users here now
This is a community for those who are new to or unfamiliar with communist, socialist or simply leftist philosophy. Ask basic questions here and learn about what we stand for!
Rules:
- Keep things SFW!
- Keep posts and comments civil.
- Don't attack someone for not knowing "enough" about communism or leftism.
- Civil discussion and debate is welcome, trolling and hate speech is not.
- No racism, sexism, homophobia, inciting crime/violence, etc.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, in other words, they don't have a consistent or coherent ideology outside of identity politics and are opposed to solidarity with either anarchists, Marxists or soc-dems. I've been growing increasingly skeptical of them, as it seems more and more to me that they want to play commune out in the jungle, the rest of the country and the world be damned. If they were really deeply committed to indigenous liberation, they should recognize that there are indigenous people outside of Chiapas who also need liberation and would benefit from positive contact with the EZLN. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they wouldn't participate in a proletarian state in the event of one being formed in Mexico, proletarians would end up having to crush them and dispose of their unprincipled practices, right?
Edit: What I mean when I say identity politics here is that they are not trying to build any kind of solidarity with other colonized people in Mexico, which looks to me like they are far more concerned with themselves than ending capitalism in Mexico building a socialist system.
Edit: This is overstated at best and openly wrong at worst. I have been corrected.
This cracker mentality is exactly why they don't take marxists seriously.
They will if those people try to do things their own way, but as it stands they have enough on their plate holding their own border (similar to Cuba, which sends aid but not soldiers due to US pressure). It's like asking a starving man why he won't donate to charity while doing nothing yourself, and why Galeano calls out the Basque revolutionaries who pointed a finger while failing to take root in their own territory. They haven't shown they can do the work, while the EZLN has. You are the chauvinist he is addressing in his letter.
Lovely racial slur. I have been advocating on their behalf, sent money to them, and bought their coffee as well. I'm sorry to have criticisms of them, but they have been isolating themselves deliberately, which is an error. I admire the Cubans for sending aid to people who show no solidarity with them and denounce their movement, which is the right choice to make.
lmao I thought you were engaging in good faith until you said cracker is a slur
Like I said, it is a weak one, but it is none the less childish to call someone you disagree with names like this.
I'm not getting into the weeds about this with a stranger, but it's apparent that you don't understand that simply using mean name calling against the people in power is not the same as the people in power using hate speech to further their systemic order based on bigotry. You can't be racist to white people as long as white supremacy is the status quo.
What power do I have? I'm not a mod of any kind here, and if I had any power in society do you think I would be here? I'll grant I'm privileged, but power is something else that I neither have nor want.
It legitimately cannot be possible to be this fucking dense
Do you mean like, being white I have the power to commit hate crimes? I mean, suppose, but like I said I wouldn't want to do that kind of thing any way.
That's not what is being said, you dense fuck. Calling "cracker" a slur is fucking stupid, because White supremacy is still entrenched as the dominant ideology in the US.