It’s bad analysis and worse politics, and least for trying to grow a leftist mass movement. It’s bad analysis because one of the most defining features of the American political system is widespread disengagement, and one of the other most defining features is deep-rooted institutional resistance to radical change. So the argument boils down to “passivity equals complicity, even when the deck is heavily stacked against any meaningful form of opposition.”
It’s worse politics because “passivity equals complicity” has been a hotly debated philosophical topic as long as philosophy has existed, so you will never reach a broad concensus on the point. And that’s setting aside the infinite rabbit holes surrounding questions like “what kind of actions do you need to take to not be complicit?,” and the fact that “passivity equals complicity” is an attack on the very people we are trying to win over.
The better framing is: “You know imperialism is evil. Don’t you want to be someone who helps create a better world?”
While I agree that "You know imperialism is evil. Don’t you want to be someone who helps create a better world?” is a better framing then “You’re either with us, or with the terrorists.” but the latter has nothing to do with what they said they’re not speaking about people who are passive. And they’re not calling anyone traitors. They’re saying that there is no third camp you are either building consent for the empire or not building consent for the empire. “to publicly critique a government or movement that stands in opposition to the American government is to do the US State Department’s work for them, from Iran to Palestine. […] As we do not hold the reins of power over the US military industrial complex, all that can be done with public “nuance” around international political movements is to create consent for empire.”
They’re saying that there is no third camp you are either building consent for the empire or not building consent for the empire.
This is the same exact reasoning as “you’re with us or with the terrorists,” which is why I brought it up. It’s a direct critique of passivity by arguing that there is no such thing as passivity – “you are either building consent for the empire or not building consent for the empire.”
But it’s not though if you are literally being passive and not saying anything about foreign American adversaries then you are not building consent for the empire. It is when you say things that help push the adversarial nature of the US as the imperial core while still saying I’m not approving of empire. That is the third camp that they’re talking about.
“There is no such thing as a third camp; one is either working to support American imperialism or to oppose it.”
This is what I’ve been saying for years now… Comrades spitting facts!
“You’re either with us, or with the terrorists.”
It’s bad analysis and worse politics, and least for trying to grow a leftist mass movement. It’s bad analysis because one of the most defining features of the American political system is widespread disengagement, and one of the other most defining features is deep-rooted institutional resistance to radical change. So the argument boils down to “passivity equals complicity, even when the deck is heavily stacked against any meaningful form of opposition.”
It’s worse politics because “passivity equals complicity” has been a hotly debated philosophical topic as long as philosophy has existed, so you will never reach a broad concensus on the point. And that’s setting aside the infinite rabbit holes surrounding questions like “what kind of actions do you need to take to not be complicit?,” and the fact that “passivity equals complicity” is an attack on the very people we are trying to win over.
The better framing is: “You know imperialism is evil. Don’t you want to be someone who helps create a better world?”
While I agree that "You know imperialism is evil. Don’t you want to be someone who helps create a better world?” is a better framing then “You’re either with us, or with the terrorists.” but the latter has nothing to do with what they said they’re not speaking about people who are passive. And they’re not calling anyone traitors. They’re saying that there is no third camp you are either building consent for the empire or not building consent for the empire. “to publicly critique a government or movement that stands in opposition to the American government is to do the US State Department’s work for them, from Iran to Palestine. […] As we do not hold the reins of power over the US military industrial complex, all that can be done with public “nuance” around international political movements is to create consent for empire.”
This is the same exact reasoning as “you’re with us or with the terrorists,” which is why I brought it up. It’s a direct critique of passivity by arguing that there is no such thing as passivity – “you are either building consent for the empire or not building consent for the empire.”
But it’s not though if you are literally being passive and not saying anything about foreign American adversaries then you are not building consent for the empire. It is when you say things that help push the adversarial nature of the US as the imperial core while still saying I’m not approving of empire. That is the third camp that they’re talking about.
There is no real passivity though