Since nitter is down I got screenshot from a friend.
She’s been a lib for the longest time, but a lot of leftists gives her a pass because of her past and she was strong black female icon. Here’s a good piece by the late Glen Ford:
https://www.blackagendareport.com/content/angela-davis-lost-her-mind-over-obama**___**
Finkelstein also blasted her in a recent interview, pointing out the fact that Davis’ main activity now is is doing Prison Abolitionists talks in front of her wealthy liberal audiences.
Do you think Are Prisons Obsolete? is still worth reading as a primer on prison abolition, or would you recommend another text?
She and the Students for a Democratic Society that were members of the CPUSA attempted to overthrow the party leadership, throw out Marxism-Leninism and liquidate the party of a new type, then reform it into a mass social-democratic party that would operate as the left wing of the democratic party. She and everyone around her were never communists. They were never comrades. They were snakes in the grass wreckers that used the communist movement to their benefit and threw it away when they couldn’t extract anything else.
why’d she bother, CPUSA was already half a heap of feds and they became social democrats anyway
Yeah I think she got out of her legal charges because she worked with the feds. Elaine Brown was dating a cia operative at the same time as all that too, iirc
Where are these ultras when there are open letters to political prisoners in western countries? Clean the shit out of your own back yard before you cry about your neighbors
Many of these so called “progressives”, NATO “leftists”, and other members of the ‘Compatible Left’ who claim to care about social justice, are nowhere to be seen when it’s time to call out the empire’s crimes, but somehow always first in line to help manufacture consent against a foreign enemy.
Astounding that people think NATO is compatible with leftism. Even if you think that pocket of Earth should have a unified army why would a leftist want the one made by anti-leftists?
She flies first class too, she has fully mbraced the celebrity role
I’m going to need someone to explain to me what distinguishes this pretty lukewarm statement from the concept of “critical support.”
I think easiest comparison is that the energy is the same as “you must condemn Hamas”
We don’t need to openly criticize the flaws of any nation which exists in a state that came to being as a reaction to colonialism and imperialism. If one wants Iran to be more free, more just, more equitable, more anything, the way that is accomplished is by ending US/NATO imperialism and removing global capitalism from tyranny over all people. The people in Iran will figure their societal challenges out on their own in whatever way works for where they are as soon as they aren’t having to continually react to generationally constant aggression.
Until Angela Davis solves the endlessly more egregious and self-evident US prison industrial complex which she also profits off of and benefits from, pearl clutching about alleged Iranian issues is not critical support, because she hasn’t actually done the support part. She has truly done nothing for Iran with her platform aside from condemn them and maybe give some milquetoast condemnations of US aggression.
I can only wonder how many of the prisoners in Iran she has allegedly supported were literal US assets doing espionage against Iran, aside from the ones who are just as likely to be entirely made up.
If one uses the typical talking points of the Pentagon but “from the left,” they are being lazy and actually putting weight behind imperialism more than doing anything for the alleged Iranian prisoners (who will more likely die from sanctions or US bombs than the hand of the Iranian state).
I think the nature of the letter and where it was published also matters. The Guardian isn’t a publication for left-wing academics to discuss theory, it’s a mainstream newspaper where most of the readership only reluctantly opposes the US-Israeli attacks on the “regime”, mainly because it failed. The letter further muddies the waters and readers will ask what the left is on that “respectable academics” felt the need to sign such a letter.
Yes absolutely
In what way is this critical support? It’s false equivalence intended to manipulate the dull witted into both-sidesing an extremely asymmetrical situation.
It could be considered third campism. “We don’t support the USA or Iran, we support this other group that you’d have to be a total chud to not support.” Davis has a platform, the og letter in the Guardian was signed on by a bunch of activists, academics, etc.,
To be clear, I don’t advocate for campism either. This statement is in line with Davis’s larger prison abolition mission. She’s at the same time an expert on the subject and IMO worthy of some criticism. She’s doing more than just posting.
Critical support is not an individual inclination, it is something that an org or party does within a coalition or united front. Since Davis is signing this letter along with several others who are all using a mass media platform to influence others, then it goes beyond some abstract individual support, its more than waving a sign at an empty government building on the weekend. Its coordinated, organized, and deploying real resources to achieve some goal.
But practically, without knowing more about Davis’s work in this area, it appears to be a “thoughts and prayers” type gesture to political prisoners. It doesn’t oppose imperialism, it doesn’t aid anti imperialism, it doesn’t even oppose the repressive elements in any real way. Maybe word will get to those prisoners and their families and supporters, that a group of prominent academics and activists are really hoping for justice. Maybe that accomplishes something, or maybe, im sure, this is part of some larger effort that will have more impact.
But third campism is a trap. It demobilizes movements and abstracts away from the contradictions that need to be organized around. Like campism is at least clustered around a side, often deeply contradictory, messy, but based in power and human need. Third campism is making ourselves feel good, avoiding contradictions, keeping our hands clean. I’m not saying that is what is happening, but it bears some hallmarks
The second part is just us state propaganda, Iran is far less repressive than the country I live in, it’s likely far less repressive than the country you live in. Dose she use the same rethoric when supporting any political position? Yet she is singling out Iran for it’s “political prisoners” when there is far less of them, than in any other coutry, and frankly, in this case, they deserve it. the letter was not “war bad”, the letter was mostly framed as Iran bad. If anything the problem with Iran is the opposite, they value their freedoms too much to start rounding up traitors, even in the face of an existential threat.
Some people aren’t actually critical of reactionary elements in anti-colonial countries. Pretty sure they see that as a plus, but I’m expected to take them seriously as Marxists and comrades all the same. How that’s different from conservative socialism we clown on every time it comes up I’m trying to work out, but surely the theoretical fault is my own because obviously theocracies can do no wrong and questioning any element of them in any context whatsoever makes you a counter-revolutionary liberal Zionist. Real 🤡 shit.
Yes yes obviously we don’t need to go out of our way to carry water for the US State department, however, we’re SUPPOSED to be offering clearer analysis and better prescriptions for the world than liberals and reactionaries. That’s an integral part of the Marxist project. The US State department tries to single out Iran for being a certified Bad Guy™ because of “Political Prisoners.” Obviously, this is nonsense, because every state is going to seek to criminalize those who are seriously committed to it’s destruction. Many states do the same or worse, including Western States. Many states that are considered staunch US allies are the most egregious! Pointing out the hypocrisy and dissolving the halo westerners have around imperialist countries would be theoretically and pragmatically consistent—but what’s theoretical and pragmatic consistency worth to a zealot? Gotta line up and start spit shining boots with our tongues just so long as they’re anti-imperialist I guess.
Davis’ statement, though addressed to Iran’s prisoners, links the consistency and design and purpose of prison architecture across the United States, Israel, and yes, Iran too. Reading the content of it, it seems kind of… Fine? Hell, this is the longest paragraph.
We see the same logic of domination when Israel uses “administrative detention” to hold Palestinian political prisoners for years without charge. We see it when Israeli authorities celebrate a new law that allows them to execute the Palestinian political prisoners they cannot dominate. We see it in the ICE detention centers where the US government imprisons our people in the pursuit of a political agenda of racist exclusion or detains our political activists for daring to speak against the US-backed Israeli genocide. We see it in the history of the US targeting freedom fighters, particularly Black, Indigenous, Puerto Rican and other anticolonial organizers, locking them away for decades to crush movements for national liberation and sovereignty. And we see the connections between these carceral systems sharing intelligence and governance techniques, such as when the USP Marion prison in Illinois became a blueprint for prisons built in Iran and Israel in the 1960s. Whether it is a border wall or a prison gate, the goal is the same: to silence people through fear, domination, and isolation.
It clearly condemns the imperialist machine and its methods, and the aggression of US and Israel. Go figure, prisons are the method by which modem states maintain their control. If you’re opposed to prisons, you’re going to necessarily be in opposition to nearly every modern state. From what I gather, I might describe Davis and Prison Abolitionists broadly as finding the carceral state and prison apparatus as the most important—or at least a co-equal—contradiction. One could critique that in a sound and principled way, but why do that when you can just tar and feather people you disagree with? Everyone knows THAT’S what a real leftist would do.
The letter (though as you point out carceral systems probably aren’t #1 contradictions) is inoffensive theoretically, and makes salient critiques. why was it published in a paper of record at the height of US aggression towards that country? what purpose, concretely, can it serve? Iran cannot reform as leftists might desire right now. So what we’re left with is academics showing off how clever and relevant they are, and as consequence blunting antipathy toward the war. It’s perfectly acceptable to make these critiques outside the public sphere–I’d argue this forum is enough grains out of the way we’re not obliged to hold our tongues.
I’m confused too. The only bad thing I can see here is interacting with the Guardian. Otherwise, as you said, it’s critical support. Obviously, Iran does some really disgusting things that make the fight against Imperialism only harder by giving libs extra ammo to paint anti-Imperialists as criminals. I’m not a big fan of optics at all, but it’s very effective in cases like this. Just think of the unveiled women pics from the Shah regime and how much of an impact they had.
And besides the optics stuff, there’s also the fact that the abuse of women and minorities should always be condemned, no matter what. There’s just no excuse for such a disgusting thing
deleted by creator
Tell me you haven’t read Marxist theory without saying you haven’t read Marxist theory.
deleted by creator
TIL Marx was counter-revolutionary for giving critical support to the Paris Commune
What the hell are you smoking my guy?
I think the point of their comment is to say that the idea of critical support is used more these days by western leftists to distance themselves from people who we shouldn’t be afraid to openly support than it is to support them in any real material way.
Ultimately that distance is more useful for maintaining the status quo than it is for actually supporting the people who are on the same side of the primary contradictions as us.
Critical support by a well informed Marxist to a like-minded and open minded audience is not what rad lib celebrities are doing when they publish in the guardian
deleted by creator
No, you’ve threatened to block me on exactly one occasion for being too queer, and that’s when I asked YOU not to police me for being queer for no reason at all. I’m happy to provide a contextual link for you or anyone else that takes issue with that characterization of events. Your whole side of the exchange has since been “deleted by user”. That is plausibly motivated by, what I hope, is shame. But you never self-crit for that or apologized, so I’m willing to entertain less savory reasons on your end, like denial or simply hiding evidence of your reactionary tendencies from the record too strong to easily reframe.
We have consistent disagreements on theoretical differences. Block me if you find it grating, now you have your excuse in “many times” apparently. But I will continue to push back on reactionary tendencies and I won’t apologize for that. Read Mao’s attack liberalism if you think I should just let that go unchallenged I guess. It would be nice to argue about some Marxist theory for a change.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
We used to call this kind of behavior “Flouncing” where instead of just blocking someone, or otherwise logging off, you make a show of it for attention.
You can just block people, it’s fine. No one’s gonna get mad.
What the hell, you absolutely can and should ask people to leave you alone if they are being weird to you
I think HB has a rule about disengaging once someone asks
I have been here for 6 years, and I’ve been in the news threads when they literally first started. I’m not going away because of a bully. You’re free to make it plain to others that you’re not here for well reasoned debate and discussion, people who present that get blocked. This site’s whole set up is premised on ‘we don’t downvote, we post why and how we disagree.’ Are we throwing that out too?
And you’re free to use the disengage rule. You’ve never used it in the past, but I take the fit you’re throwing to be an effort at it now.
you’re the one still replying to them months after, just leave them alone dude.
she supports women, like the lying fabulist who fabricated the “Iranian woman to be stoned” story from 2010
The Guardian Letter: The Anti-Imperialist Scholars Collective Responds
https://www.blackagendareport.com/guardian-letter-anti-imperialist-scholars-collective-responds
You just posted a link to this OP. Did you mean to maybe post one of these?
https://www.anti-imperialists.com/statements/dc121068-bd7d-4408-8a5f-c23c8f70e4d1/
https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=nF2cTriHIq0
https://www.blackagendareport.com/guardian-letter-anti-imperialist-scholars-collective-responds
EDIT: I see now that the text of the link you posted really is to another post, but the formatting on the link is making it so clicking it just redirects back to this one.
Thanks for the correction I’ll fix the link
It makes me wonder why the DDR was willing to speak out for her when she was a prisoner when she is so willing to abandon the fight of anti imperialism
I think the brain poison of Academia is this obsession with being technically rhetorically correct even if it means failing to reckon with your own identity and position within the imperial core because you are simply an objective truth teller of the ivory tower. its like its more important to be publicly ideologically correct in the narrowest sense regardless optics or how actually tangibly meaningful it is that you be publicly In the right on this or that issue because; your credibility as an academic is more important than international solidarity or the sovereignty and right to self determination of the victims of imperialism and colonialism.
Academia: not even once kids!
Except this isn’t even about being technically correct, she is just uncritically regurgitating us state propaganda.
This is exactly what I mean when I use inbred as an insult. They only consume information from a single source, live an them with atrophied minds unable to think outside what is allowed by their very narrow intellectual genealogy.
This isn’t doubling down.
