What the fuck does "support" even supposed to mean? 99...

What the fuck does "support" even supposed to mean? 99,9% of the time when people say shit like "I support this movement" or "I support this government" it just means that you know them and like them but have never and will never do anything to further their cause.

This gets ridiculous when you see friendships end over a heated debate about whether "supporting" (that is: doing nothing about) something is ethical or not.

"Support" is often a way to repackage your tastes and half-assed opinions as deep polemics or as an urgent political call for action. "Support" is to appear well versed in global politics, "support" is therefore very American: "I support Tibet's independence" in American parlance means "I'm not like these other redneck assholes who can't tell a world map from a beer stain on a rag!"

Then there's "critically support." Oh, this one's the best kind of "support." It means that what you actually "support" is shit, but your views are so nuanced, so attentive to the most minute details and still attentive to the larger whole that you have found a way to combine "not doing anything" with "shit" and call it "critical".

Other urls found in this thread:


More relevant then ever.

Feigning relevance is all the left has had since the 70's. It's a coping mechanism for the fact that the western left is completely ineffectual and irrelevant.

and this

here's what it means

is doing nothing better than doing something that means nothing and pretending it does?

Okay, so what??? Beliefs are important man, I could see a friendship ending if they suddenly decided the Holocaust didn't happen.
What do you want? For everyone to move to Tibet and start advocating? To just stop having opinions on Tibet? To stop caring? To be even more apolitical and just give up? Honestly don't understand what you want.

This is a relevant question - why is it that our "support" for things is reduced to vague opinions? There's lots we can do, but why does none of it come to mind immediately?

Speaking and thinking in clear, non-obfuscatory terms for a change would be a good start.

An example (don't know if this actually happened):

Like? I support means that you like it as it is, for what it is becoming, etc… It's a very shallow firm of advocacy. I wouldn't be a Socialist if some redditor hadn't linked Holla Forums, tiny efforts do cause change, especially from millions of people.

Wow, you have an actionable plan for achieving Socialism without risking careers, family, social ties? Or just plain not potentially being a waste of time and energy? That's pretty amazing BPP, I'd love to see it, if you would just detail it for us quickly. Make sure not to be vague, because that wouldn't be good enough. I can't wait to begin, personally.

No. Support means that you actively cooperate with or at least partake in the activity from the sidelines. "The US supported Latin American dictators" doesn't mean they simply cheered for them, they actively cooperated with those regimes. For the Soviet Union supporting liberatory struggles around the world wasn't just "liking" some habbenings abroad, but actual and serious diplomatic, secret service, military etc. work.

Yes, two million facebook likes can actually save this child from dying from hunger.

I didnt disagree with it, I said what people mean when they say "I support this". He was implying "support" was an unclear term, so I made the fairly obvious clarification. I can't care for your snowflake definition of supporthe though, either.
Yeah shit man everyone knows that in the USSR Lenin HIMSELF made everyone a Communist/some really serious, like materials, transmutated people into communists. It's not like individuals expressed their opinions and convinced people along with large "support"(Certified By user) efforts. That'd be craaaazy.
I'm still waiting for you and yours great plans for Socialist action. Truly excited for where this will lead.

The only snowflake here is the one who tries to categorize magical thinking as a form of support.

Your definition is noticeably different from how people use it, you recognize this. I couldn't care less for how Google describes the word.
We're done here, it's more than thinking. It's notuch but I already gave an example and you are just being dishonest. Go be mad about the lack of """real""" advocacy. Feel free to detail this, again, I really would like to learn of your plan, which is also your only chance at getting (You)s.

Today I learned that you can only support communism by giving money to somebody. Cool.

Let's all bow our heads in prayer for those suffering in Yemen!


The thing you learned today is that you have shit-tier reading comprehension.

The other definitions either are nouns or only apply to structures like buildings.

Add "diagnosed with autism" to your TIL list.

Whoa now, are you trying to redefine support to fit your own special snowflake definition? Seems like a bad idea to me.

How did you get any of this from what I wrote?
I said basically the opposite of what you seem to be reading from me - factually, there is a lot to be done. Can you actually deny that we have the physical capacity to offer more than nominal support?

But I certainly don't know what it is or how to go about it - just that it involves money, travel, communication, supplies, and presumably arms.

It's this shit but for political positions.

I used to suspect that "rooting for" is a big part of what many American and British progressives mean by support, and didn't think of that part as effective. But then I saw somebody on RevLeft say they OPPOSE ALL OPPRESSION THROUGHOUT HISTORY!!1 Now, what can "oppose" even mean here? What does it mean to oppose Ramses or Louis XIV today? (It means as much as reading Spider-Man comics and being angry at Dr. Doom. *shakes fist* Get him, Spidey!) It literally was a case of support meaning something entirely contained within your head. Of course, that person had many posts and a great karma score. So, moral of the story: With some people, you can never have too low expectations.

Communists and anarchists do need money. Giving money is giving support.

That doesn't work even as a strawman. Money is practically ~90% of support current Communists need.

It's funny how people expect movements to accomplish things under Capitalism without any means: "oh, I don't want to give you any money, just take them from Capitalists like everyone does" is swiftly followed by "Why did you turn class traitor? So you were liars all along!"

'Support' is supposed to mean providing your time, labor and money to leftist movements and causes, and engaging in dialogue with others who do the same to critically strengthen the greater movement.

'Support' nowadays usually means arguing about stuff on the internet, and eventually harassing/banning people who disagree.

That's a good point. Related: youtube.com/watch?v=mGC3uJadXh0

Trashcan of ideology

"support" on Holla Forums means rooting for someone, just like on a sports team, that's how we keep track of wars and parliamentary decisions, it's just like football fam.

He was making fun of the user for being analysis about the definitions when they didn't support him. Jesus.

He was complaining about people only supporting, and not doing any "real" work, so I asked him what people could do without self-sacrifice. If you or him can't detail this, then you are (maybe just him) just assmad and you're wasting time. The self-sacrifice part was important, as then it is clear that people simply don't want to actively support, so thusly being mad that they aren't doing enough while acting as if they do falls apart, as they don't care to do enough, even if they were aware.

Care to explain how "hold up" only "applies to buildings?"

There are basically two things a communist should be doing

1. reading theory

2. being politically active (in real life, not on twitter you r tard)


Lmao this xD

Even if Support just means liking something without doing anything to further their cause, it's important that we still ban people if they like the wrong things.

Nice photo of Alex Jones

Care to explain how you literally hold up a movement ? Considering how literal we are being now.

Except there's nothing to do. Nothing except pseudo-activity.

1. join an organization
2. protest
3. vote
4. prank call your congressmen

Those are all pseudo-activity. Come back with something that actually works.

depends on the type, aims, methods, program
generally yes, though if commies can actually mobilize thousands to protest there's huge potential for future expansion

Funny you should mention it, because one of the main tasks of a bourgeois democracy is to muddy up the waters wherever popular will is concerned. You can have surveys and research and whatever else to support just about anything, so the most trustworthy surveys (e.g. a yes-or-no question on support for bill X) gets lost in a sea of bullshit propaganda and punditry. It's part of the mechanism that allows for representatives the world over to vote for the polar opposite what their constituents want, and catch little to no flak for it. It's a method, in other words, to fool people into thinking they're in charge. You might as well do a survey of French serfs on whether they support Guillaume's ascension to Dauphin of France.

I agree completely but how does this relate exactly to OP? In my understanding legitimate mass movements acted upon these facts and transformed them by polarizing them. A typical example would be Vietnam. That is to say that the anti-Vietnam war movement was successful only because it defined apathy as "support for Vietnam," explicit support for the war as "genocide (corporate interest, etc.)", by making opposition to it more than a "pure statement."

Put simply, any talk of popular support in a bourgeois democracy is utterly meaningless, futile and often nothing more than a tool for demagoguery, so long as it isn't translating into action. As to how high or how low is this "action threshold" depends on time and place, naturally, as well as the precise topic of debate.

Like you said, some movements manage to steer popular opinion here and there, but I'd put most of the responsibility on zeitgeist. The situation in America at the time was propitious to the anti-war movement.