Go on then, tell me which leftist leaders you think should be upheld.

It’s like I’d color my face blue and someone calls me a racist, discriminating penguins.

It’s strange that this concern for context only ever goes in one direction. Symbolism, like words, develop meaning through their usage.

If I were to say that I ejaculated during intercourse with your wife last night, would you take that to be an insult or would you be dying on that same context hill that the verb to ejaculate used to refer to suddenly making a statement and that intercourse used to refer to having a discussion with someone?

Probably not.

Would you say that the swastika isn’t a Nazi symbol because it originated in Indo-European religious and cultural symbology?

Maybe. I can’t speak for you.

The origin of something doesn’t determine its usage.

Can I offer you some Belgian chocolate [CW: disfigurement, discussions of racism] in these trying times?

I challenged this notion with a lib the other day.

The watermelon originated in Africa. That doesn’t mean that the vile caricaturised depictions of black people eating watermelons is somehow not inherently racist.

You can also look to the origin and continuing usage of the swastika, especially in Asian cultures, as another example here - you aren’t going to tell me that the right-angled unicode swastika being used by westerners on the internet isn’t done in service of fascism 99% of the time.

And on that matter, don’t let erm-ackshually dorks tell you that the 90 degree swastika wasn’t used by Nazis and isn’t representative of them. One of the most famous depictions of the Nazi swastika is a right angled one:

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1214749781387436032/pu/vid/450x360/o0Nxlts0lffM8lUv.mp4

No. As per the message in the image of the post, posting is not organising.

The worker’s councils were recreating the basis of capitalism and interfering with regional and national interests in favour of their own petit-bourgeois aspirations. They wanted to become a labour aristocracy and they threatened the economic foundations of proletarian democracy with their narrow, self-interested trade union consciousness. Yugoslavia’s model is a perfect example of what would have happened if this was allowed to proliferate and to threaten the revolution.

If the Mensheviks didn’t want to get outlawed then maybe they shouldn’t have aligned themselves with the interests of the aristocracy and the Kadets over the proletariat 🤷‍♂️

Imagine being salty that the October Revolution overthrew the bourgeois Provisional Government. The soviets had established themselves as the legitimate organ of proletarian power and they seized political power because the Mensheviks and the Constitutional Democrats did not represent them.

Lol, I’ll bite. How do you think that Lenin strangled the revolution in the cradle?

Do you mean libertarians, or “libertarians” as per Murray Rothbard’s quote:

“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over…”

Nah, I didn’t do that. I just pointed out that they are either a supporter of capitalism (or reactionary politics) or they support revolutionary/evolutionary socialism, all of which are inherently authoritarian in their own ways.

The material conditions that give rise to authoritarianism is a different question altogether. I was specific in my choice of words for a reason.

“We have liberated Europe from fascism, but they will never forgive us for it.”

— Marshal Zhukov

Let’s not pretend that your politics aren’t inherently authoritarian as well.

Either you support capitalism (or worse), which is grossly authoritarian as it inflicts massive violence not only via warfare but through mass starvation and deprivation, or you support socialism, in which case you have two options:

1. The violent overthrow of the current system (spoiler alert: that’s a very authoritarian thing to do!)

2. The gradual reform of the current system, meaning maintaining the status quo for an exceptionally long time as we ever so slowly creep our way to a more just economic system while countless people starve, go homeless, die without healthcare, end up in yet-another war and so on (which is a very authoritarian proposition, just throwing away the lives of the poor in your own country—not to mention those in the developing world—just so you can have a neat and tidy reformist approach that doesn’t rock the boat.)

I’m thoroughly enjoying watching Twitter xit itself