Their political education is western media where the revolutionary strawmen turns out to be self-serving and hypocritical by being gasp the one thing they (communists) hate. It is an ever repeating trope.
Subconsciously they despise communists for not playing along with the performance of righteousness that they conduct - Eating the right foods, watching the right media, wearing the trendiest clothes from the right brands, exposing the right views in the right „civilized“ manner, saying the hottest takes du jour - performance, performance, performance, all of course funneled through consumerism.
They think communists are angry (white) teenagers who idk get pampered by sacrificing prestige, job opportunities, relationships, family and other markers of success in a capitalist society- Oh and give their LIFE to our cause. Massive projection from the liberals.
Liberals think everything bad boils down to individusl priviliges which are idealist instead of structural economic relations. Thus indicating a necessary but though solution to a problem becomes a privilige because to them it implies that you can only advocate for that because it would not inconvenience you because you somehow have some idealist attribute shielding you from the tough work you suggest.
what are the oppressed? Advocates for incrementalism?
A lot are, there’s no way around this. There isn’t any mass revolutionary movement in the U.S., and there really aren’t even regional ones. At best you have a decent PSL chapter that’s probably dwarfed by your local DSA. Incrementalism is the only game in town at the moment, so a lot of people support it because there isn’t anything better.
The argument against incrementalism is that it doesn’t work. If an incremental improvement is your goal from the start you’ll get only scraps and they’ll always be subject to being rolled back – look at abortion, look at wage gains, look at the halting steps to check the imperial machine. It’s not privileged to recognize when someone is trying to buy you off with scraps, and being oppressed does not magically grant anyone political acumen.
The fact they are speaks to how liberalism is still the dominant ideology and by extension the most accessible ideology.
But I guess my broader point is that the oppressed and exploited don’t lean as moderate as liberals project them to be, that it’s actually a sign of privilege to believe incrementalism works when it objectively doesn’t work for the vast majority of people. Liberals tell on themselves this way.
I think we should reject the “which take is more privileged” framing wholesale. You can argue it either way, it’s all hypothetical (in the sense it’s “people who think this must be privileged” rather than talking about actual people and their opinions), and it ignores the real question: what’s actually going to improve people’s lives in a meaningful way.
Oh for sure, when all else fails you can simply accuse the other of privilege so you won’t have to think about what they might have to say. It’s a thought-terminating technique.
I still maintain however that from a polemic point of view it’s interesting to note the hypocrisy of liberals accusing OTHERS of privilege when they look up to people like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.
I don’t know why liberals keep reading privilege into a desire for revolution, because then what are the oppressed?
Advocates for incrementalism?
Their political education is western media where the revolutionary strawmen turns out to be self-serving and hypocritical by being gasp the one thing they (communists) hate. It is an ever repeating trope.
Subconsciously they despise communists for not playing along with the performance of righteousness that they conduct - Eating the right foods, watching the right media, wearing the trendiest clothes from the right brands, exposing the right views in the right „civilized“ manner, saying the hottest takes du jour - performance, performance, performance, all of course funneled through consumerism.
They think communists are angry (white) teenagers who idk get pampered by sacrificing prestige, job opportunities, relationships, family and other markers of success in a capitalist society- Oh and give their LIFE to our cause. Massive projection from the liberals.
Liberals think everything bad boils down to individusl priviliges which are idealist instead of structural economic relations. Thus indicating a necessary but though solution to a problem becomes a privilige because to them it implies that you can only advocate for that because it would not inconvenience you because you somehow have some idealist attribute shielding you from the tough work you suggest.
A lot are, there’s no way around this. There isn’t any mass revolutionary movement in the U.S., and there really aren’t even regional ones. At best you have a decent PSL chapter that’s probably dwarfed by your local DSA. Incrementalism is the only game in town at the moment, so a lot of people support it because there isn’t anything better.
The argument against incrementalism is that it doesn’t work. If an incremental improvement is your goal from the start you’ll get only scraps and they’ll always be subject to being rolled back – look at abortion, look at wage gains, look at the halting steps to check the imperial machine. It’s not privileged to recognize when someone is trying to buy you off with scraps, and being oppressed does not magically grant anyone political acumen.
The fact they are speaks to how liberalism is still the dominant ideology and by extension the most accessible ideology.
But I guess my broader point is that the oppressed and exploited don’t lean as moderate as liberals project them to be, that it’s actually a sign of privilege to believe incrementalism works when it objectively doesn’t work for the vast majority of people. Liberals tell on themselves this way.
I think we should reject the “which take is more privileged” framing wholesale. You can argue it either way, it’s all hypothetical (in the sense it’s “people who think this must be privileged” rather than talking about actual people and their opinions), and it ignores the real question: what’s actually going to improve people’s lives in a meaningful way.
Oh for sure, when all else fails you can simply accuse the other of privilege so you won’t have to think about what they might have to say. It’s a thought-terminating technique.
I still maintain however that from a polemic point of view it’s interesting to note the hypocrisy of liberals accusing OTHERS of privilege when they look up to people like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.