some more discussion of CIA infiltration in anarchist publications here https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2021/10/15/cointelpro-fbi-anarchism-disrupt-left/
some more discussion of CIA infiltration in anarchist publications here https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2021/10/15/cointelpro-fbi-anarchism-disrupt-left/
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
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.
We haven’t had discussions about Soviet policies in like 5 months lol. I can’t search anything on here because it’s too slow
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.