I’m an ML too, they aren’t rare here, but extended dialogue between liberals and MLs is rare from what I’ve seen (though not totally unheard of). Usually the liberals are either very avoidant or combative (and sometimes the MLs get pretty combative too, tbf), which prevents there being any kind of understanding. between speakers.

Slightly contra- the other user that responded to you, I need to ask: You’ve spoken with rightwingers before, right? Most westerners have had the “privilege” at least a few times to allow such people to speak for themselves. Have you ever had an even slightly comparable interaction with a “tankie” where they also got to speak for themselves, rather than be told about what they believe third-hand?

Noam Chomsky for example is accused of the same thing for the Pol Pot genocide, though at the time he was right for the same reasons – accusations started flying in the US based on completely banal sources.

You’re giving Chomsky’s version of the story, but it’s such a weird story because one of the only communist projects Chomsky ever spoke in favor of was easily one of the worst ones (along with Peru), ones that even hardcore “tankies” disavow. Like, wasn’t this the motherfucker that said the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a victory for the “left”?

Granted, there is misreporting on Cambodia, which started when it was contemporary and continues to this day, but that misreporting is mostly on the magnitude of the crimes committed, not the basis of calling them crimes (i.e. they were still awful).

Anyway, Chomsky is a shitty left-neoliberal [PDF]

Someone should tell them that “avoiding ‘politics’” is just the lazy method of supporting the status-quo rather than achieving being “apolitical”.