I disagree with it being a defense for Mamdani. Mamdani is not unknown, and his rhetoric is getting less radical as he’s increasing in fame-derived protection. Rather you should take what Truly said to mean that he was vetted as this type of person before he was allowed to become influential.
In the USA, liberal democracy was legitimised on a framework apartheid, following public lynchings, following a genocide and cattle slavery. The optics in the USA have always been vile, and yet their PR is able to dictate the narrative. Even right now they have more political prisoners than anywhere else, yet the average liberal wouldn’t label the governance as “oppressive”.
There has been a period of fewer political assassinations in the USA. (Or they’re better at hiding them). We can safely presume they found lower risk and higher return strategies, but that doesn’t mean we can infer the risk was ever high.
I mean, people can judge for themselves, and as organizations, what kind of risk they want to take and how they want to present what they’re doing. But people got vilified just for bringing aid to Cuba. Unless you’re just going to go full underground, you have to take a stand in public view sometimes. If one’s goal is to make a career as a politician for themself within the system, then they aren’t a revolutionary to begin with. But if they are trying to get elected for now and use it as a platform to elevate consciousness and move things closer to liberation, capitulating on everything that matters is not the way.
Maybe Mamdani is nothing more than an opportunist. But for those who are sincere and look at the lane someone like him takes, my insistence is, learn from the lane someone like Marandi takes instead. Yes, the conditions are not identical, but the tactic of bringing your own narrative, rather than treating an interview like an attempt to keep the peace with family members during the holidays, is applicable anywhere in the world where liberation is an ongoing fight.
I disagree with it being a defense for Mamdani. Mamdani is not unknown, and his rhetoric is getting less radical as he’s increasing in fame-derived protection. Rather you should take what Truly said to mean that he was vetted as this type of person before he was allowed to become influential.
In the USA, liberal democracy was legitimised on a framework apartheid, following public lynchings, following a genocide and cattle slavery. The optics in the USA have always been vile, and yet their PR is able to dictate the narrative. Even right now they have more political prisoners than anywhere else, yet the average liberal wouldn’t label the governance as “oppressive”.
There has been a period of fewer political assassinations in the USA. (Or they’re better at hiding them). We can safely presume they found lower risk and higher return strategies, but that doesn’t mean we can infer the risk was ever high.
I mean, people can judge for themselves, and as organizations, what kind of risk they want to take and how they want to present what they’re doing. But people got vilified just for bringing aid to Cuba. Unless you’re just going to go full underground, you have to take a stand in public view sometimes. If one’s goal is to make a career as a politician for themself within the system, then they aren’t a revolutionary to begin with. But if they are trying to get elected for now and use it as a platform to elevate consciousness and move things closer to liberation, capitulating on everything that matters is not the way.
Maybe Mamdani is nothing more than an opportunist. But for those who are sincere and look at the lane someone like him takes, my insistence is, learn from the lane someone like Marandi takes instead. Yes, the conditions are not identical, but the tactic of bringing your own narrative, rather than treating an interview like an attempt to keep the peace with family members during the holidays, is applicable anywhere in the world where liberation is an ongoing fight.
This is what brings me into full agreement. He threw his wife under the bus, ffs.