I’m a liberal. I’ve always been a liberal…
[…]
“Don’t punch left” is the core tenet of Solidarity, a new book by Astra Taylor and Leah Hunt-Hendrix. In a laudatory interview with the Washington Post, Hunt-Hendrix said the book was aimed not only at progressives in general but also specifically at liberals who criticize the left, naming me and newsletter author Matthew Yglesias as “falling into the right’s divide-and-conquer strategy.”
I read a couple more paragraphs and I had to stop. I forgot what a terrible writer he is. The article is like reading a textbook that lectures you.
It would surprise any liberal to learn we have no desire to redistribute wealth, tackle climate change, or advance social justice and care only about corporations and the status quo.
Then what are you doing?
When every cause is framed as a matter of absolute moral urgency, which is the lingua franca of protest politics, then no compromise can be brooked.
When every cause is framed as a matter of absolute moral urgency, which is the lingua franca of protest politics, then no compromise can be brooked.
That was also quoted in the r/Enough_Sanders_Spam thread. What a odd sub that is. It’s like I put on “They Live” glasses and all the comity and civility and the rest of the superficial façade of liberals is stripped away and I can see who they really are.
Compromise fetishists, with their Henry Clay shrines or whatever, never seem to grasp that if you’re not at the table you’re on the menu. They like to bring up environmentalism vs. construction, as if the compromise is merely between supporters of the Nature Team and the Development Team, rather than, say, communities who don’t want be poisoned and the corporations that want to poison them.
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
Wealth redistribution is socdem nonsense designed to have a better capitalism.
Tackle climate change
While wanting to preserve the market economy. They probably think it’s doable, but if you understand capitalism and the bourgeois state you know it’s not.
advance social justice
What does this mean? They can move the goalposts as far as they want and claim they achieved it. Useless category.
care only about corporations
Yes, I know. You like the petty bourgeois too! How nice of you. Fuck off.
and the status quo.
See “social justice” above. They do like the state, capitalism and everything that entails. You are the status quo. The only reason you claim not to be is to differentiate yourself from other supporters of capital.
I’d much rather liberals talk to the left with open hostility rather than their usual smug “civility” tbh. Make it abundantly clear to all that if you have any empathy for others at all, you belong on the left, not with the liberals.
You might have seen it alreay but a few days ago I started a George Takei related thread that I can’t get out of my head - A lib “how to” on talking about Gaza - Hexbear
Most of it was exactly what I expected. But a surprising word stuck in my craw - “dealbreaker”. As if there can be a “deal” made on morality. And - of course - the “deal” is we must change 100% and see things the lib way while they don’t change an iota. Quite a deal!
That was 3 days ago and “dealbreaker” still really annoys me.
There are no coalitions to build with them.
I disagree, there are tactical coalitions that can be built predicated on cooperating over specific issues - such as avoiding nuclear war or ending the Palestinian genocide, etc. - with the understanding that tactical cooperation does not equal comraderyship with those in your coalition.
No shit, that doesn’t mean there aren’t times where interests align and we can collaborate - preferably on our terms and with our lead - on key issues.
I don’t see any of you lot complaining about how the Communists coalitioned with the progressive libs in the anti-war movement against the Vietnam War or saying the Communists should’ve gone their own way during the Civil rights movement
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
“In Defense of Punching Liberals”
hehe…
I’m trying to work my way through Lenin’s “What is to be Done”. If I’m understanding it so far, it starts out heavily criticizing opportunists and the idea of “freedom of criticism” in the context of members of an organization being wreckers.
What a wacky coincidence…
![[Not the Onion] In Defense of Punching Left(hexbear.net)](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/2f24416b-15c8-4492-8885-92c99b08d536.png){kind=link}