How is that remotely true?

Yeah, the CIA famously hires MLs. Are you seriously claiming that my mild criticism is tantamount to the actions worst criminal organization in world history? Hell, this is the 101 sub, you're supposed to be allowed to get something wrong. Your constant name calling is one of the most childish things I've ever experienced from a leftist. While I'm not judging your ideas by the way you're presenting them, some people will, and I hope you rethink that approach to correcting people.

I guess? It seems like this could really just be a misunderstanding of terms here. When you said power I thinking of power as being something I can exercise or use, especially on or to someone or something. I am explicitly acknowledging that I have the power to do/say a broad number of things that could hurt many people and get away with it, I am aware from statistics that I have access to more financial resources than many people in this country so I have at least some economic power, and I am aware that the majority of that money ultimately comes from exploitation of oppressed peoples here and abroad. This kind of power and others I didn't list, I have, absolutely. I guess I was thinking you meant something a little more explicit, as you did accuse me of being CIA earlier.

I've understood privilege in the context I am talking about, white racial privilege, to mean exemption from certain oppressions that others face rather than some sort of dispensation of power (of course other than to commit hate crimes and such). If that's an insufficient understanding, would you care to clarify?

Would you prefer I said epithet? Is that more accurate?

You're right about white supremacy, didn't I essentially acknowledge that with my comment?

Do you mean like, being white I have the power to commit hate crimes? I mean, suppose, but like I said I wouldn't want to do that kind of thing any way.

What power do I have? I'm not a mod of any kind here, and if I had any power in society do you think I would be here? I'll grant I'm privileged, but power is something else that I neither have nor want.

Like I said, it is a weak one, but it is none the less childish to call someone you disagree with names like this.

I'm not fantasizing about it, I was asking if it might have to happen. This is not the same as saying that it is should happen, this is wondering if conflict between militant non-Marxists and militant Marxists might come to pass, as it often has before. I reiterate, in what way have you done more than me?

It's all I can do short of flying there and picking up a rifle. I'm in and have been in a couple of orgs in real life that have given messages of support their way. What have you done for them?

It's a slur, if a weak one. But sure, advocating a broader movement built on their successes is chauvinist, I guess.

Lovely racial slur. I have been advocating on their behalf, sent money to them, and bought their coffee as well. I'm sorry to have criticisms of them, but they have been isolating themselves deliberately, which is an error. I admire the Cubans for sending aid to people who show no solidarity with them and denounce their movement, which is the right choice to make.

So, in other words, they don't have a consistent or coherent ideology outside of identity politics and are opposed to solidarity with either anarchists, Marxists or soc-dems. I've been growing increasingly skeptical of them, as it seems more and more to me that they want to play commune out in the jungle, the rest of the country and the world be damned. If they were really deeply committed to indigenous liberation, they should recognize that there are indigenous people outside of Chiapas who also need liberation and would benefit from positive contact with the EZLN. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they wouldn't participate in a proletarian state in the event of one being formed in Mexico, proletarians would end up having to crush them and dispose of their unprincipled practices, right?

Edit: What I mean when I say identity politics here is that they are not trying to build any kind of solidarity with other colonized people in Mexico, which looks to me like they are far more concerned with themselves than ending capitalism in Mexico building a socialist system.

Edit: This is overstated at best and openly wrong at worst. I have been corrected.

I'm on the fence. On the one hand, deeply committed Trots are wreckers and ultimately reactionary, but I was brought into Marxism by well-intentioned but poorly informed Trots: there is hope for some of them. Maybe we leave it there but make it more of a community to try to pull online Trots out of their ideological dead end. I don't know what that process would be, maybe forcing them to allow historically accurate content to contrast their claims.

What I want to know is what the CYM is going to do in the future, especially as various members age-out of the "youth" categorization. Will they become their own party? Will they become the youth wing of another ML party? What I'd really like to see is the various ML's in Ireland coming together, wiping the slate clean, and forming a united party (perhaps naïve, but still would be nice).

It's a right wing talking point about how some people in the US are being held to account for their actions for more or less the first time, particularly in regard to racism and sexual violence. Cancel culture to the right is wanting to remove someone's status or influence based on past actions. To us, it's just doing the right thing and making people responsible for the distasteful things they've done.

In my opinion there are two kinds of tr#ts. First we have the new leftist, someone who has only recently discovered socialism, and is still learning the history and theory liberal education denied them. As such, they come to support socialism, even communism, but do not yet have an accurate understanding of history and as such are uncomfortable supporting AES. They go through a Tr#tskyist phase, believing that the USSR would have been perfect if everyone had just followed Tr#tsky. Usually, this kind of person ends up as an ML (myself included) because they continue to do research and get into arguments on the internet with better informed MLs.

Then there is the other kind of Trots#yist, the well read and committed Tr#t. They know what he did, they know what he wrote, and they know who he allied himself with and they either do not care or deny it. These kinds of people are the more detestable ones, as they spend their time spreading lies about Lenin, Stalin, and all AES while also wrongly and ahistorically insisting that the peasantry cannot be a revolutionary class and that the proletariat alone can pursue revolution. Most of these types are western academics like the type that turned me into a t#ot. Honestly I wish there was an easy way to fix these people, but for the time being we should continue to marginalize them while teaching accurate history and theory.

Trots#yism itself is pretty simple. Take orthodox Marxism ala Rosa Luxemburg and prented to do Leninism sometimes. Then add the beliefs that exclusively the industrial proletariat can be revolutionary and that the purpose of the revolution in any country was not to build socialism at home but to commit it's resources to spreading the revolution abroad (war). Even during the Russian revolution he was proven wrong by the fact that in many areas of the country, peasants and soldiers engaged in the revolution to a great extent. The second bit is even worse, as what this means is that he would have built an economy centered around war with the sole and explicit goal of invading other countries, overthrowing their governments and social order, and then moving on to the next conquest. This too is a laughable idea. It would have been suicidal and ruinous to reengage with WWI like Tr#tsky wanted, and it wouldn't have been much better if they had declared an offensive war at any time after that. He was a fool who should be acknowledged for the positive role he played during the revolution, but his actions afterwords are inexcusable.