• Beat_da_Rich@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    True to an extent.

    I don’t know any M-Ls that won’t admit this when in discussion with other left tendencies (especially when it comes to Spain). I’d like to think Marxists have learned from past mistakes. It’d be nice if anarchists did the same so we could focus on the more immediate picture rather than on historical feuds between different factions a century ago.

    • Fuckass [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well in my experience, on this site anyway, there are people who have rationalization for every time the USSR pulled some shit on socialists in foreign countries

      • Beat_da_Rich@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can you give an example? I mean, providing context for a Soviet decision or elaborating on why the USSR did something doesn’t necessarily mean someone agrees with it.

      • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s the difference between rationalising something and insisting on treating it in its historical and political economic context?

        I note as an aside that almost every time someone puts the Ukraine war into context, a lib will claim that this must be (uncritical) support for Russia/Putin. But one doesn’t necessarily follow the other. (I’m giving libs the benefit of the doubt here, as I don’t think most know the difference between critical and uncritical support.)

        How does one add nuance if those who’ve already come to a conclusion reject the nuance as rationalisation (apologia?) for leading to a revised conclusion.