BrokebackFountain [none/use name]
I feel like part of that validation/ affirmation from cis men might be commodification instead of genuine respect. E.g. I’ve had known many cis people personally that treat me cool to my face but behind my back are the absolute worse.
Like the trope of the cis guy that will be nice to you when they want to get in your pants but would deny being interested in you when if the subject comes up to your friends.
realize that this pseudo-woke “work is work” bullshit only works for people of the middle class in the imperial core. in the rest of the world proles are little more than slaves and “wage-labor” turns into “wage slavery” real fast. how can you watch shit like this and still think it’s cool to romanticize the exploitation of the proletariat.
John Kerry
Just to add a funny piece of history to the idea of the idea of the cia intentionally splitting ‘leftists’. Back in the day the bolshiviks had an agent of the tsar high in their ranks that actively discouraged unity between the bolsheviks and the mensheviks - the intention being to stop the socialists from forming a larger political bloc. But from lenins point of view the main thing it did was prevent the bolsheviks from taking on the internal contradictions of the mensheviks.
This unity of the left that people fight for nowadays is a false unity based on ignoring internal contradiction instead of struggling on it and navigating it. If anything was a cia project I would say it’s the tendency to build false coalitions strife with internal contradiction that are bound to fall apart from the seems at the mere presence of any meaningful hostile external factor ( if these forms don’t already disassemble themselves before hand).
We’ll that and thinking that blindly saying that china and the ussr are good while also being unscientific in your analysis doesn’t make you a lenninst. it makes you the walking stereo type of a ‘ML’ people refer to when they call lenninists tankies. This is a great discredit to the entire ideological framework of dialectic materialism and historic materialism.
A solid answer. But why even raise the concept of perfection to begin with - instead of emphasizing the good they’ve done navigating contradiction and maintaining their exsitance as a socialist state. To initially phrase that as being ‘imperfect’ seems to me to bring the readers attention to comparing socialist states against the utopian ideal, instead of promoting it’s material strengths.