• Bobbycostner@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s a shame that all happened. I always liked that Saddam Hussein guy but reading that thread he’s gone off the deep end. I was all a bit unsure about what PatSoc meant but I’m gathering it means putting up with bigots. So I’m out.

    • i_must_destroy@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Saddam was a mixed bag. I had some interesting interactions with him but sometimes he was very aggressive. He was calling people here idiots at one point, which I don’t agree with. Most people here are respectful to each other.

    • ButtigiegMineralMap@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I had a few minor disagreements with him, mostly good interactions, every once in a while I was vaguely offput by the Baathist love bc the baathists were not cool w the idea of communism and Saddam (yea I know Anti-imperialism is better than licking the boot, but Qaddafi was anti-imperialist and way more based) was not Fuckin cool, not someone to look up to. And ultimately when I saw the posts leading to their ban, I was disgusted by the Faux-Marxism displayed. To paraphrase they said Since DialMat means everything develops and nothing is guaranteed or static, we can disregard the labor aristocracy in relation to Israel and Palestine because it will eventually break off anyways. I believe they had said that Palestinians and Israeli proletarians had common goals(which is not true really) which meant a 2 state solution is fine and that PatSoc Israelis are real communists and that Palestinians shouldn’t be against a Socialist Israel. That whole thing stunk to high heavens of a basic misunderstanding of settler colonialism and Israel’s history of expansion and oppression against West Asians and made me happy to see the ban

        • These people could still be comrades, but their reactionary views should be harshly criticized. Stalin surely had some bad takes by today’s standards, but we need to consider his environment to contextualize those views; it’s not reasonable to be anti-abortion with the information available today (not that it was “reasonable” then – I’m not sure what word to use, but I hope I’m being decently clear). IMO, this isn’t as clear-cut as with, for example, slave owners – slavery should always have been clearly abhorrent, whereas I can kind of understand being anti-abortion at the time if one’s views on the subject had never been challenged