6 ms·

They're pretty much loathed in the left. They're more like PETA than antifa, they cover up internal sexual assaults, have a bunch of cranks, and other groups h

They're pretty much loathed in the left. They're more like PETA than antifa, they cover up internal sexual assaults, have a bunch of cranks, and other groups have to put up with and try to prevent their continuous entryism, hijacking protests and other actions to self-promote. Lots of cranks (though probably less so than CPGB-ML who are full on tankies), and a giant pain in the backside. Nevertheless, whilst I chuckle at this, it is a dangerous thing and yet another reason Facebook should not be trusted as any sort of impartial platform and probably dismantled.

pjc50 6y ago
> CPGB-ML who are full on tankies It remains astonishing that a number of these people did a full 180 turn to right-libertarians and from there to Brexiteers, eventually leading to Claire Fox, apologist for the bombing of Manchester, becoming a member of the House of Lords. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Fox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Fox
- antihero 6y ago
  They're cranks. The "left-wing brexit" I think was in part inspired by anti-globalism and not wanting to see financial migrants as more readily and cheaply exploitable labour but it was weird.
- dpwm 6y ago
  > > CPGB-ML who are full on tankies > It remains astonishing that a number of these people did a full 180 turn to right-libertarians and from there to Brexiteers, eventually leading to Claire Fox, apologist for the bombing of Manchester, becoming a member of the House of Lords. Claire fox was never CPGB-ML, but the “Revolutionary Communist Party.” From what I can understand, the RCP was always a primarily contrarian entity and always more libertarian than Marxist. To quote their journal, Living Marxism: > We live in an age of caution and conformism, when critical opinions can be outlawed as 'extremism' and anything new can be rubbished as 'too risky'. Ours is an age of low expectations, when we are always being told what is bad for us, and life seems limited on all sides by restrictions, guidelines and regulations. The spirit of LM is to go against the grain: to oppose all censorship, bans and codes of conduct; to stand up for social and scientific experimentation; to insist that we have the right to live as autonomous adults who take responsibility for our own affairs. These are basic human values that cannot be compromised if we are ever going to create a world fit for people. [0] This seems to have more in common with the libertarian right than Marxist, particularly “to insist that we have the right to live as autonomous adults who take responsibility for our own affairs,” which is almost the antithesis of Marxism. > Fox stayed with her ex-RCP members when the group transformed itself in the early 2000s into a network around the web magazine Spiked Online and the Institute of Ideas, both based in the former RCP offices and promoting libertarianism. [1] Given their apparent funding, contrarian headline-generating antics and subsequent banding together, some may question whether they were a model for what would come later: an opaquely funded right-libertarian outlet. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Marxism [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Fox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Fox
- frabbit 6y ago
  Why is it surprising? A lot of Marxist functional description of the capitalist economy is coherent with events if you squint hard enough. If that is accepted then moral choices and personal preferences overlaid ontop lead to several different paths. Accelerationism is one.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    I find it hilarious that these Marxist dimwits think they are coming up with some new idea. Its a fossil of an idea with a long track record of top-down oppression, corruption, and progression stagnation where nothing gets built in perpetuity. You can try to make the system more fair without going full neanderthal. The Marxist movement gets a lot of spoiled upper middle class kids who want the govt to take care of them like mommy and daddy did because they realize its going to take real work and slim odds to get the same standard of living they grew up with. And thats just called life. By definition not everyone can be above the average life quality. A great way to kill the standard you have and for everyone is to kill production and attack the capital markets. At the end of the day life quality is a logistical issue above all else. Jeff Bezos is not going around the country buying up all the single family homes and hoarding all the doctors in the country for his knee injury. If you want better medicine you need to invent more efficient technology through the capital markets to serve people. If you want more homes you need to invent better home building techniques to cater to the masses. Thats how increased efficiency works and its why our lives generally get better with services and quality of live each decade. Thats not to say there are not tweaks and governing to be done to the capital markets (the govt is the conductor), but this is the general aspiration and trend.
  - dpwm 6y ago
    You don't really have to squint too hard to see crises of overproduction. I very much doubt that Claire Fox is an accelerationist.
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  Not really, ideology doesn’t matter to (some) extremists, they’ll follow whoever uses the tools of fear and hate most effectively. See the “Bernie Bros” who flipped into full Trumpists a few short months later in 2016. I’m sure if you look back at the Spanish Civil War and other divisive historical time periods you’ll find plenty of turncoats that flip from one extreme to another.
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    > See the “Bernie Bros” who flipped into full Trumpists a few short months later in 2016. I’m sure if you look back at the Spanish Civil War and other divisive historical time periods you’ll find plenty of turncoats that flip from one extreme to another. This seems like a bit of a myopic, low-dimensional view of the political landscape. Bernie and trump (esp candidate trump) weren't "opposite extremes" when it came to plenty of issues: anti-free trade, anti-corporatist, promises to protect entitlements, complaining about the corruption of the existing political order, even just the populist vs technocrat aesthetic. For people who prioritize this issue, the notion that Bernie and Trump are "opposite extremes" in every way relative to Hillary is laughable. (President trump obviously reneged on much of his promises as a candidate and went with many mainstream gop policies, but that's neither here not there when discussing support during the election)
    - belorn 6y ago
      Bernie and Trump were also both anti-war during the preliminaries, each for different reasons. I prefer Bernie's reason of defunding the military in order to put the money into more social benefiting areas, but Trump goal on focus more on internal US interests could have some of the same effects. The outcome naturally has a lot to desire.
      - wutbrodo 6y ago
        Yup. The idea that there's a single axis along which Bernie and trump is an incredibly simple-minded view of the world. Unfortunately, most voters are pretty simple-minded, which tells you a lot about why politics is the way it is.

pjc50 6y ago

> CPGB-ML who are full on tankies It remains astonishing that a number of these people did a full 180 turn to right-libertarians and from there to Brexiteers, eventually leading to Claire Fox, apologist for the bombing of Manchester, becoming a member of the House of Lords. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Fox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Fox

antihero 6y ago
They're cranks. The "left-wing brexit" I think was in part inspired by anti-globalism and not wanting to see financial migrants as more readily and cheaply exploitable labour but it was weird.
dpwm 6y ago
> > CPGB-ML who are full on tankies > It remains astonishing that a number of these people did a full 180 turn to right-libertarians and from there to Brexiteers, eventually leading to Claire Fox, apologist for the bombing of Manchester, becoming a member of the House of Lords. Claire fox was never CPGB-ML, but the “Revolutionary Communist Party.” From what I can understand, the RCP was always a primarily contrarian entity and always more libertarian than Marxist. To quote their journal, Living Marxism: > We live in an age of caution and conformism, when critical opinions can be outlawed as 'extremism' and anything new can be rubbished as 'too risky'. Ours is an age of low expectations, when we are always being told what is bad for us, and life seems limited on all sides by restrictions, guidelines and regulations. The spirit of LM is to go against the grain: to oppose all censorship, bans and codes of conduct; to stand up for social and scientific experimentation; to insist that we have the right to live as autonomous adults who take responsibility for our own affairs. These are basic human values that cannot be compromised if we are ever going to create a world fit for people. [0] This seems to have more in common with the libertarian right than Marxist, particularly “to insist that we have the right to live as autonomous adults who take responsibility for our own affairs,” which is almost the antithesis of Marxism. > Fox stayed with her ex-RCP members when the group transformed itself in the early 2000s into a network around the web magazine Spiked Online and the Institute of Ideas, both based in the former RCP offices and promoting libertarianism. [1] Given their apparent funding, contrarian headline-generating antics and subsequent banding together, some may question whether they were a model for what would come later: an opaquely funded right-libertarian outlet. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Marxism [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Fox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Fox
frabbit 6y ago
Why is it surprising? A lot of Marxist functional description of the capitalist economy is coherent with events if you squint hard enough. If that is accepted then moral choices and personal preferences overlaid ontop lead to several different paths. Accelerationism is one.
- trident5000 6y ago
  I find it hilarious that these Marxist dimwits think they are coming up with some new idea. Its a fossil of an idea with a long track record of top-down oppression, corruption, and progression stagnation where nothing gets built in perpetuity. You can try to make the system more fair without going full neanderthal. The Marxist movement gets a lot of spoiled upper middle class kids who want the govt to take care of them like mommy and daddy did because they realize its going to take real work and slim odds to get the same standard of living they grew up with. And thats just called life. By definition not everyone can be above the average life quality. A great way to kill the standard you have and for everyone is to kill production and attack the capital markets. At the end of the day life quality is a logistical issue above all else. Jeff Bezos is not going around the country buying up all the single family homes and hoarding all the doctors in the country for his knee injury. If you want better medicine you need to invent more efficient technology through the capital markets to serve people. If you want more homes you need to invent better home building techniques to cater to the masses. Thats how increased efficiency works and its why our lives generally get better with services and quality of live each decade. Thats not to say there are not tweaks and governing to be done to the capital markets (the govt is the conductor), but this is the general aspiration and trend.
- dpwm 6y ago
  You don't really have to squint too hard to see crises of overproduction. I very much doubt that Claire Fox is an accelerationist.
quickthrowman 6y ago
Not really, ideology doesn’t matter to (some) extremists, they’ll follow whoever uses the tools of fear and hate most effectively. See the “Bernie Bros” who flipped into full Trumpists a few short months later in 2016. I’m sure if you look back at the Spanish Civil War and other divisive historical time periods you’ll find plenty of turncoats that flip from one extreme to another.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  > See the “Bernie Bros” who flipped into full Trumpists a few short months later in 2016. I’m sure if you look back at the Spanish Civil War and other divisive historical time periods you’ll find plenty of turncoats that flip from one extreme to another. This seems like a bit of a myopic, low-dimensional view of the political landscape. Bernie and trump (esp candidate trump) weren't "opposite extremes" when it came to plenty of issues: anti-free trade, anti-corporatist, promises to protect entitlements, complaining about the corruption of the existing political order, even just the populist vs technocrat aesthetic. For people who prioritize this issue, the notion that Bernie and Trump are "opposite extremes" in every way relative to Hillary is laughable. (President trump obviously reneged on much of his promises as a candidate and went with many mainstream gop policies, but that's neither here not there when discussing support during the election)
  - belorn 6y ago
    Bernie and Trump were also both anti-war during the preliminaries, each for different reasons. I prefer Bernie's reason of defunding the military in order to put the money into more social benefiting areas, but Trump goal on focus more on internal US interests could have some of the same effects. The outcome naturally has a lot to desire.
    - wutbrodo 6y ago
      Yup. The idea that there's a single axis along which Bernie and trump is an incredibly simple-minded view of the world. Unfortunately, most voters are pretty simple-minded, which tells you a lot about why politics is the way it is.