The admins will always have disagreements on topical issues, and freedom of criticism should be a non-negotiable principle. Of course, freedom of criticism does not mean a greenlight to advocate for chauvinistic tendencies. We collectively dismissed one admin because of their transphobic views, and while except for these views I still hold an admiration for the person in question, I think it was the correct decision to remove them since they did not accept our criticism of it.
When I have discussions, especially on these hot topics, I try to make myself as clear as possible, not only to avoid confusion but to avoid undesirable feelings. I have noticed that when it comes to Settlers, many comrades have their feelings running high with anger and resentment. I reckon this shows a lack of discussion on the subject in question so posts like these are very useful to deal with that.
While the meme “READ SETTLERS” is useful to make people familiar with this very important work, I think it also created a cult around this book and I think this is the origin of the anger. In previous discussions about this book, a person confessed individually to me that they were defending the book without having at least read it, and that’s when I noticed something was wrong, because I noticed this behavior everywhere in leftist discourse. My hope is that posts like these can relieve this tension around this work.
I believe this work is very divisive because it is all over the place: it’s correct, but at the same time it is not. It promotes very coherent insights, and at the same time very bad takes. It sometimes cites sources for some claims, but when you go ahead and read those sources it actually contradict those claims. This is why I heavily criticize this book while at the same time saying it’s valuable for US comrades.
Agree. One thing i also have to note which is coming out very often in the discussion areund Settlers, is the strange, idk, fetishization of the proletariat. Being proletarian is defined by the relation to the means of production. And by definition proletariat is the only class that can be consequently and fully revolutionary, it does not meant they must be so in every condition. Not revolutionary, or even actively counterrevolutionary proletariat do not stop being proletariat.
Yes. I greatly appreciate your posts in this topic, made me relived that admin team is not monolith about the issue.
The admins will always have disagreements on topical issues, and freedom of criticism should be a non-negotiable principle. Of course, freedom of criticism does not mean a greenlight to advocate for chauvinistic tendencies. We collectively dismissed one admin because of their transphobic views, and while except for these views I still hold an admiration for the person in question, I think it was the correct decision to remove them since they did not accept our criticism of it.
When I have discussions, especially on these hot topics, I try to make myself as clear as possible, not only to avoid confusion but to avoid undesirable feelings. I have noticed that when it comes to Settlers, many comrades have their feelings running high with anger and resentment. I reckon this shows a lack of discussion on the subject in question so posts like these are very useful to deal with that.
While the meme “READ SETTLERS” is useful to make people familiar with this very important work, I think it also created a cult around this book and I think this is the origin of the anger. In previous discussions about this book, a person confessed individually to me that they were defending the book without having at least read it, and that’s when I noticed something was wrong, because I noticed this behavior everywhere in leftist discourse. My hope is that posts like these can relieve this tension around this work.
I believe this work is very divisive because it is all over the place: it’s correct, but at the same time it is not. It promotes very coherent insights, and at the same time very bad takes. It sometimes cites sources for some claims, but when you go ahead and read those sources it actually contradict those claims. This is why I heavily criticize this book while at the same time saying it’s valuable for US comrades.
Agree. One thing i also have to note which is coming out very often in the discussion areund Settlers, is the strange, idk, fetishization of the proletariat. Being proletarian is defined by the relation to the means of production. And by definition proletariat is the only class that can be consequently and fully revolutionary, it does not meant they must be so in every condition. Not revolutionary, or even actively counterrevolutionary proletariat do not stop being proletariat.