Either you ridin’ or we pass you, flyin’ by sayin’ fuck you

  • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Although “left unity” is pure idealist crap

    So’s your mom. There is something intensely funny about people claiming to be MLs following ML teachings calling for ideological purity before an ML state is established. Like read the tenets of your own belief system, read lenin.

    • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      read lenin.

      “Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism.”.

      Or like, what Lenin did you have in mind

      • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Hey that’s a fun little quote, where did you get that. I wonder what “Distorters of Marxism” he was talking about? Could he be talking about “Liquidators”, i.e. people who wanted to disband the social-democratic party of Russia in favor of joining with legal parties? Nooo, that’d mean you were quoting something dishonestly, and that just couldn’t be.

        I’m asking you to read “Left-communism: An infantile disorder”

        Which I shall quote now

        "All compromise with other parties . . . any policy of manoeuvring and compromise must be emphatically rejected,” the German Lefts write in the Frankfurt pamphlet.
        It is surprising that, with such views, these Lefts do not emphatically condemn Bolshevism! After all, the German Lefts cannot but know that the entire history of Bolshevism, both before and after the October Revolution, is full of instances of changes of tack, conciliatory tactics and compromises with other parties, including bourgeois parties!
        To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain and refusing in advance ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace one’s steps, or ever to abandon a course once selected, and to try others? And yet people so immature and inexperienced (if youth were the explanation, it would not be so bad; young people are preordained to talk such nonsense for a certain period) have met with support—whether direct or indirect, open or covert, whole or partial, it does not matter—from some members of the Communist Party of Holland.
        After the first socialist revolution of the proletariat, and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie in some country, the proletariat of that country remains for a long time weaker than the bourgeoisie, simply because of the latter’s extensive international links, and also because of the spontaneous and continuous restoration and regeneration of capitalism and the bourgeoisie by the small commodity producers of the country which has overthrown the bourgeoisie. The more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough, careful, attentive, skilful and obligatory use of any, even the smallest, rift between the enemies, any conflict of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this reveal a failure to understand even the smallest grain of Marxism, of modern scientific socialism in general. Those who have not proved in practice, over a fairly considerable period of time and in fairly varied political situations, their ability to apply this truth in practice have not yet learned to help the revolutionary class in its struggle to emancipate all toiling humanity from the exploiters. And this applies equally to the period before and after the proletariat has won political power.

        • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just so I understand correctly, Lenin is saying that communist parties need to join together to overthrow capitalism. Is that how you read it?

          Can you help me understand why you think that extends to anarchists?

          • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not only are most anarchists who would even be interested in such an alliance anarcho-communists, i.e. communists, Lenin directly calls for allying with any “mass ally”, even if this ally is “temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional”

            • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In case anyone is thinking “Oh surely Lenin wouldn’t include people who weren’t marxists in this” btw

              Prior to the downfall of tsarism, the Russian revolutionary Social-Democrats made repeated use of the services of the bourgeois liberals, i.e., they concluded numerous practical compromises with the latter. In 1901–02, even prior to the appearance of Bolshevism, the old editorial board of Iskra (consisting of Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich, Martov, Potresov and myself) concluded (not for long, it is true) a formal political alliance with Struve, the political leader of bourgeois liberalism, while at the same time being able to wage an unremitting and most merciless ideological and political struggle against bourgeois liberalism and against the slightest manifestation of its influence in the working-class movement.

            • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              And I agree with Lenin.

              I don’t understand temporary alliances for specific goals to be the same as “left unity”.

              That implies a unity of purpose and goal that doesn’t exist.

              I don’t want the future Anarchists want, and they don’t want mine.

                • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  ARE YOU CURRENTLY IN A PLACE IN WHICH YOU ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN THE BOURGEOIS INTERESTS? NO? THEN READ LENIN AGAIN YOU MOTHERFUCKER.

                  Is it a thing in Hexbear to just like, be meaner when you can’t get your point across?

                  Maybe having downvotes would make y’all more pleasant to interact with.

                  • CommieGabredabok [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    second paragraph

                    To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie […] and to renounce in advance any change of tack, […], or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme?

                    The Black Panther Party in America, for example, had many anarchist comrades within it, a “rainbow coalition,” and so on… For COINTELPRO, however, it is known that Feds have used ultra-left newspapers and anti-AES-focused stories in anarchist papers for psy-ops. Feds mainly targeted the leaders and most outspoken members of the Black Panthers (mostly ML or ML oriented), and many major past members that remain alive are anarchists. Take that as you will.

                    also, I have an account on both Lemmygrad and Hexbear. All this infighting is making me angery

                  • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Is it a thing on lemmygrad to pretend to read Lenin and then say the total opposite of what was meant? Is it common practise to selectively quote things out of context and then try to contort ML into blanquism?

                    You’re a dishonest actor, there is no need to be nice to you

              • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You let them help you build socialism as long as your goals align? Like what do you want me to say here “Massacre them in the streets right after the revolution”? As long as your goals align you work together, when they don’t you are opposed and act accordingly.
                Do you want me to keep reading you Lenin?