this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2026
89 points (96.8% liked)

GenZedong

5003 readers
88 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

No comment from me

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

To address the derisive tone of calling them ‘parades’… When people from the Global South give feedback or advice on this kind of thing, Western Leftists ignore them or patronize them. They dig their heels in and double down on the righteousness of their ineffective methods while a significant portion of them continue to uncritically agree with Capitalist media’s portrayal of any actual Socialist governments - In Pacific Asia, in the Sahel, in Latin America - as brutal dictatorships and problematic. Doing things like calling Western Protests ‘Angry Parades’ is a very effective filter when talking to Westerners to see if it’s actually worth discussing politics with them or if they’re more likely to yell at you for undermining the ‘Leftist Unity’ that was needed to get Kamala into the White House and save the world.

The reality is if I was my old liberal self, I probably would have said nothing and let it slide. I challenged the other poster on what they said because I'm trying not to let things slide just because some aspect of what they said may have a good point, or I may not want to get into a back and forth that is an uncomfortable or unpopular to do.

And after all of this, I still think the original presentation comes off reductionist, though to give credit where it is due, further explanation has been provided in response to the challenge and I appreciate that. I think it was and is worth going into because we have gotten a more detailed discussion out of it, without it deteriorating (as far as I'm aware) into bad faith or bad feeling. It's basically the antithesis of how it would have gone if this platform was like twitter. Thankfully, we have the space here to explain ourselves in detail.