I have made several critiques of the left & leftism recently, as many have noticed, one concerning the *past* & its idealization, one concerning the present & its contradictions & hypocrisies, & one linking the two thru the idea of statist & settler colonial cope

There are 3 common responses to these critiques:
1. For the past ‘what about X statement from Y person?’
2. Leftists may have believed that then but not now
3. You believe X things so why not identify as a leftist

These are flawed critiques

They’re actually all roughly flawed for the same reasons—they:
1. Focus on ideas, slogans & beliefs not actions, behaviors, policies, material conditions
2. Isolate some ideas but not others
3. Idealize the left as an abstraction separate from the people themselves

However, in recognizing these flaws, there actually lies a legitimate set of rebuttals to my arguments, which is ironic, but since I try to portray multiple sides of a debate, I will enumerate then

1. The first is to simply say, “the left is a genealogical & ecuwomenical term, that’s always comprised a contradictory, loosely affiliated, set of people, has no idealistic abstract content, so, in that sense you, Yungneocon, are a leftist”