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”
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
We’re both clear that Lenin says to work with people.
I’m trying to communicate that “left unity” implies a unity of movement beyond temporary alliance.
If we’re agreed that lenin is recommending temporary alliances, then it feels like we should be agreed that “left unity” (a permanent unity of purpose) isn’t really a thing.
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?
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?
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”
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.
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.
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
We’re both clear that Lenin says to work with people.
I’m trying to communicate that “left unity” implies a unity of movement beyond temporary alliance.
If we’re agreed that lenin is recommending temporary alliances, then it feels like we should be agreed that “left unity” (a permanent unity of purpose) isn’t really a thing.
Is there anything I’ve missed in this summation?
The popular fronts established by the soviet union lasted for 50 fucking years. You’re just being pedantic and useless on purpose.
And you’re just being mean because you don’t want to concede the point.
Can we agree that “left unity” (as a permanent unity of purpose) isn’t a real thing?
Or are you just going to duck the question and yell at me again?
deleted by creator
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?