I’m not sure why people are surprised that a group largely made up of ML leftists would have a flippant attitude toward geopolitical violence.
My main point is, still, that accusing them of being “right wing” just because you don’t understand their ideological stance is dumb.
Basically the only difference between ML and the alt-right is that the alt-right wants violence against “libtards”, and ML’s want violence against “shitlibs”, while being insufferably snobby about pretending to be morally superior because they didn’t use an abliest slur.
It’s like you just took a fascist and put them on a liberal’s moral high horse.
Nah, I think what you mean is that’s the only relevant difference to you. Nevermind that MLs have a body of economic theory, if the most important detail about them is their willingness to use force then I think it’s fair to suggest your prevailing ideology isn’t socialism at all, it’s liberalism. Not that you can’t be socialist-leaning, but if the only difference you see between MLs and far-right conservatism is violence, then you seem blind to the thing that you have in common with them.
I’m all for Marxism, but I haven’t observed the “body of economic theory” having any relevance, except as a snooby self-righteous justification for authoritarianism and violence.
Even if you were to strip all moral interpretation away, violence and authoritarianism is unstable and ineffective. ML’s in practice are fake progressives, because they don’t even care for finding a stable effective solution. The progression of society is no longer the point.
** And take notice that while ML’s claim to not support Russia, they’ll often jump to Russia’s defense, despite Russia funding alt-right and neo-Nazi movements in America
