eureka

Findafox is a good, work-safe example.

Yeah, I wasn't going to say anything but I'm struggling to think of many times we've done that, especially as Australia overall (as opposed to some unions).

Maybe there's fighting Imperial Japan, but Pig Iron Bob was exporting them resources after they were already committing war crime massacres so I wouldn't count it.

All that said, there are certainly Australians who do care, and I'm often pleasantly surprised to see people who seem absorbed by their phones or trying to avoid pamphlets double-take when they hear the issue we're organising for and show interest or at least support.

I can smell the memes from here

Not mocking, I've seen some of the nests posted by r9k users so I believe it's possible for plenty of them.

It's the colour historically associated with liberalism (as in capitalism).

Yellow/Gold is historically the colour representing liberalism (as in capitalism), which has a solid history of ending royal monarchies.

Ah, I see, yeah I was just talking about theory and ideology, the behaviour of activists rather than governments, which can be much simpler.

I'd assume a tankie perspective (based on my understanding of historical Lenin/Bolshevik perspectives, plus the event that the name 'tankie' came from) is that their government/party represents the worker class, and that when push comes to shove, the most important thing is to maintain the revolution and avoid capitalist counterrevolution, so if that ultimately demands sacrificing rule of law, property rights, liberties and even suspending democracy, they would insist the ends justify those means. Their view is that there's no point in pursuing ideals like property rights and rule of law if that means the government falls and those rights collapse anyway. So they justify pragmatic compromise. And what happened to Jack Ma is an example, they'd rather remove Ma's rights than permit that amount of capitalist power.

Not to disagree with the claim, but it's important to incidentally point out that historically speaking, this kind of strategy is ineffective, at least without an organised mass movement to resist the reactionary clampdown. It's not sustainable. If it were, the US would have solved their healthcare problem already.

I don't see how "globalize the intifada" jumps over to adventurist shootings. In practice, it means actions like writing off weapons factories (e.g. Palestine Action in the UK), strike and blockade actions (e.g. maritime unions, port actions), pressuring governments and organisations into withdrawing support for the zionist regime (e.g. boycotts, BDS movement, university protests) and other mass movement. We saw similar mobilisation with apartheid South Africa and the Vietnam War, so this isn't some imaginary claim, it's based on actual history of similar international solidarity movements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalize_the_Intifada

rule of law and property rights are secondary to them.

'Secondary' is being generous. They'd likely see them purely through a pragmatic lens instead of seeing them as legitimate concepts.

The core point of socialism is to eliminate private property altogether (not to be confused with personal property!), and socialist theory considers the current laws to be effectively dictated by the owning class through systemic influence over politicians, judges, mass media and other systematic pressures, rather than rules proposed or ratified by people like you and me, or for the benefit of people like us. So it makes sense for them to see rule of law as illegitimate, as a tool for the bourgeois class to maintain their dominance over the working class.

I’m not really up to date with the classification.

That's actually not a bad sign. The whole 'left'-'right' classification is vibes nonsense which changes wildly between countries and eras, and was never a useful classification to begin with. We wouldn't be using those two words if there were actual concrete ideas they represented.

Further summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k

It’s the thing I said would start happening to Jewish folks and Israelis.

Are you conflating Israel and Zionism with being Jewish? Or are you simply suggesting Jewish people might receive collateral damage from Zionism, similarly to Muslims (and Arabs and Sihks and ....) after the 2001 WTC attacks?

Are you implying anyone thought it would?