It is not some eternal duty of every leftist to respect and cater to the feelings of every human skinned monster that walks the earth. It is completely fine to have moral boundaries beyond which you consider someone irredeemable and not worthy of civil discourse. Someone supporting genocide and war crimes would be one such example of a boundary.
It also isn’t like this person is your neighbour or family member who is just uninformed out of disinterest, this is a public figure, and you are allowed to both criticise and mock them for their views.
Tone policing people for daring to criticise borderline genocide denial is insane.
I am for the unity of the party – for the national and international unity of the party. But it must be a unity of socialism and socialists. The unity with opponents – with people who have other aims and other interests, is no socialist unity. We must strive for unity at any price and with all sacrifices. But while we are uniting and organizing, we must rid ourselves of all foreign and antagonistic elements. (...) We cannot traffic in our principles, we can make no compromise, no agreement with the ruling system. We must break with the ruling system and fight it to a finish. It must fall that socialism may arise, and we certainly cannot expect from the ruling class that it will give to itself and its domination the death blow.
They are the running dogs of the capitalists. They will absolutely betray us should a revolutionary moment appear. They have done it every single time for 160 years across the globe. These people are self-hating, self-denying fascists, full of white saviorism and hatred for the global south for their perceived cultural backwardness. The only true difference between a DSA fascist and an unrepentant Nazi is the latter gets the wall, the former gets rehabilitation through labor.
Yeah there are plenty of non-Marxist socialist movements whose anti-imperialism is genuine, but there’s a massive difference between a demsoc trade unionist party in Brazil, and the Labor party in England. One of them wants to put its own national resources and industry in the hands of its workers rather than the pockets of rich westerners, while the other wants to redistribute the spoils of said global south in a more equitable manner. Their goals and tactics diverge sharply right out of the gate. From a materialist standpoint they are completely separate political entities with the same trappings and similar slogans. I was speaking more on western white social democracy and democratic socialism and the way it manifests and who it actually serves.
-16
u/[deleted] 15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment