Just been thinking a bit more about this Seymour excerpt. I think we need to be clear that this is really quite dishonest. The "wider radical left" wasn't simply silent on this. It *actively facilitated* the cancelling and reputational destruction of those who pushed back... https://twitter.com/leninology/status/1286411347081728001

And embedded within this disingenuous accounting is a really quite problematic elitism that pits the "radical left" against the "Skwawkbox left". The "non-crank left" against the "crank left", basically.

So in this new, revisionist formulation, the "cranks" are accepted to have been substantively correct (de-crankification?), but nonetheless insufficiently skilled/educated to have not "made a hash of" addressing those "murky underlying political issues"...

Issues that the "radical left", with all its education, experience and skill, would presumably have dealt with much more adeptly.

Loooool to the disingenuousness of this, no?

Anyways, I don't want to be too unkind to Richard, as he's by no means the most irritating "non-crank leftist". And, yes, I suppose there's some kind of relative credit in him conceding that the "crank left" were substantively correct to push back against the phoney AS crisis...

But a little more humility, a little more introspection, a little more honesty, would go an awful long way. Imho.