There’s a difference between what a political force purports to be, and what kind of impact it actually has on history. The Narodniks were probably the most “radical” force within pre-revolutionary Russia. Yet in practice, they acted as a hindrance to the advancement towards Russia’s next developmental stage by embracing a foolish terroristic policy. The equivalent was true for the anarchists. The effect these kinds of ultra-radical, ultra-left elements had was not to help with revolutionary progress, but in effect to assist the reformist elements.
I won't even start on the 1619 revisionist history---I look at the economic conditions of our history, including who was extracting colonial profit and when. The US revolution was the bourgeois revolution of its time that left a country that was beginning its industrialization mainly in the North along with the continuation of the limited slave economy in the South. That was the establishment of our great and perfect bourgeois form of state to oppress the masses of workers who invited the freed men into a whole new form of slavery from convict leasing (working criminalized mostly blacks in the South for industrialization after chattel slavery) to tenant farming and good old fashioned wage slavery. Not sure what their point of revising history is other than obscuring the working class for use by the "left" liberal wing of our bourgeois "republic".
I do agree somewhat though, with working with some not so liberal IDPOL pure, like the idealist libertarians though in the end there will be a parting of the ways. I find working with liberal "left progressives" to be most dangerous, though. Their sell-out tactics are more insidious than those of the "right" liberals (conservatives.) "Progressives" want what they believe to be a "social democracy" which is really a capitalist welfare state such as the Nordic varieties (which are all beginning to crumble.) They'll never let reality get in the way of their idealism.
My one criticism is the use of the word "queer" which itself is a cooptation of gay/lesbian bourgeois "rights" movements. The current bastardization of the word "queer" are loads of heterosexual people using the term to appear edgy rather than be included in "heteronormativity" whatever the hell that idiotic liberal IDPOL term is supposed to mean. All "rights" movements are bourgeois in nature unless they are expressly calling for removal of the state (and in the case of socialism/communism the means of production and private property in its other forms as well.) Marriage is a property relation under bourgeois rule, so the gay/lesbians of the working class gained nothing really. Most WORKERS can be fired at will under "right to work" and even if your state isn't "right to work" filing a lawsuit is nearly impossible and the "labor" institution in your state will always be too "underfunded" to do jack about your firing for whatever reason. So if a miniscule amount of people are going to be fired for being homosexual, they'll get no help as they are still proletariat. Rich gay/lesbians are of the bourgeois class so the few limits on their so-called "rights" have been removed, such as adoption of children, or more sinisterly, gay men using surrogacy to economically exploit poor women to risk their lives in high risk pregnancies and the increased use of poor men/boys in prostitution as their heterosexual counterparts have been doing.
What is meant by liberal "decolonization" term?
I won't even start on the 1619 revisionist history---I look at the economic conditions of our history, including who was extracting colonial profit and when. The US revolution was the bourgeois revolution of its time that left a country that was beginning its industrialization mainly in the North along with the continuation of the limited slave economy in the South. That was the establishment of our great and perfect bourgeois form of state to oppress the masses of workers who invited the freed men into a whole new form of slavery from convict leasing (working criminalized mostly blacks in the South for industrialization after chattel slavery) to tenant farming and good old fashioned wage slavery. Not sure what their point of revising history is other than obscuring the working class for use by the "left" liberal wing of our bourgeois "republic".
I do agree somewhat though, with working with some not so liberal IDPOL pure, like the idealist libertarians though in the end there will be a parting of the ways. I find working with liberal "left progressives" to be most dangerous, though. Their sell-out tactics are more insidious than those of the "right" liberals (conservatives.) "Progressives" want what they believe to be a "social democracy" which is really a capitalist welfare state such as the Nordic varieties (which are all beginning to crumble.) They'll never let reality get in the way of their idealism.
My one criticism is the use of the word "queer" which itself is a cooptation of gay/lesbian bourgeois "rights" movements. The current bastardization of the word "queer" are loads of heterosexual people using the term to appear edgy rather than be included in "heteronormativity" whatever the hell that idiotic liberal IDPOL term is supposed to mean. All "rights" movements are bourgeois in nature unless they are expressly calling for removal of the state (and in the case of socialism/communism the means of production and private property in its other forms as well.) Marriage is a property relation under bourgeois rule, so the gay/lesbians of the working class gained nothing really. Most WORKERS can be fired at will under "right to work" and even if your state isn't "right to work" filing a lawsuit is nearly impossible and the "labor" institution in your state will always be too "underfunded" to do jack about your firing for whatever reason. So if a miniscule amount of people are going to be fired for being homosexual, they'll get no help as they are still proletariat. Rich gay/lesbians are of the bourgeois class so the few limits on their so-called "rights" have been removed, such as adoption of children, or more sinisterly, gay men using surrogacy to economically exploit poor women to risk their lives in high risk pregnancies and the increased use of poor men/boys in prostitution as their heterosexual counterparts have been doing.