Well, I don't expect it to be perfect, but a reasonable primer. I expect this audience to be generally capable of putting things into context and filtering away part of judgement call of people working on youtube videos.
I didn't have a clue about what people were talking about, when there was criticism to Cultural Revolution, so it's useful to know what the criticism is. I've read here somewhere that it's currently agreed by CPC that it wasn't 100% perfect? So that, together with some reasonably constructed world view, should make things more accessible than just going into 50 years of historical documents, which I won't do.
Remember the pipeline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbllPronIi0
Not everyone thinks the same, but we're generally going in the same direction. There will be enough time to discuss specifics of political lines later, I suppose.
But I can now understand why you guys consider it sus, it's a valid point. I'll add the note on the post. :)
Soberana (https://soberana.tv/), a Marxist-Leninist Brazilian collective of content creators organised to occupy social media.
They are now called by the liberals to their podcasts to show "both sides", and the audience is ridiculously high.
The main contrast I see is in this one: https://youtube.com/@KritikePodcast From their top 7 podcasts, 4 are communists, and 1 is a developmentist economist. But there's other examples.
There's also https://icl.com.br/, which isn't explicitly ML, but is more revolutionary each day. Founded by ex banking person, they're going into hard news, courses and documentary. Pretty professional structure.
We believe organising works, right? Those are examples of organising, to offer general public an alternative explanation to stuff that's usually covered by right wing. One from grassroots no financing pure volunteering work, another for how good financing can work.
Theres a lot of content from smart people already. But they are very long format. Are we and our content on tiktok, Instagram, Facebook, telegram, YouTube shorts? I don't know those places, I couldn't say. But a systematic approach to fill those places with our content is likely to work and get some attention to lift our content producers to be invited to bigger venues in English language too.
I agree with "it's a liberation struggle, hamas is fair game" as a blanket public position from everyone that understands what's in play.
And the og post is from a public forum.
But maybe in lemmygrad we don't need the same blanket public position "between ourselves"?
Maybe the criticism is to not share those positions in public spaces, to not give any ammo to the genocidal settlers?
I see lemmygrad is technically a public space, but it's much smaller than xitter. And the audience generally understands what's in play.
Or is it the approach to dismiss the idea of discussing hamas completely, and keep focusing on the settlers atrocities, with a general "there's no need to talk hamas. It's a liberation struggle", including within lemmygrad?
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. But I'd probably disagree with the approach to how criticism was made in the op.
No trying to condemn oppressed's reaction, but isn't it true that a split between Palestinians happened between national authority and hamas, seeded by us/israel?
To the best of my knowledge, Hamas isn't a progressive socialist unit, it's a fundamentalist religious group with a social support network.
While I can generally agree on the concept of "all hands against imperialism", why is it a problem to agree between ourselves that there's a problem with the political structure of hamas?
I can only thank you for the depth of your analysis and how far you went into the video to make these clarifications.
If you have any suggestions on the topic, send it through and we can add it ot the top post. :)