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”
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.
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
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.
And you’re just being mean because you don’t want to concede the point.
No, I’m being mean because you’re being intellectually dishonest and wasting everybody’s time to make a pedantic, useless, and somehow still wrong, point.
Unless you want to talk about anything other than your pointless need to redefine “Left unity” into a thing it isn’t (and then failing to argue against that), we’re done. You pointless person.
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?
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”
In case anyone is thinking “Oh surely Lenin wouldn’t include people who weren’t marxists in this” btw
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.
second paragraph
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
Yeah, but does “temporary ally” mean the same thing as “left unity”?
This post is the worst and I hate it but I can’t back out now.
(verb) to ally: combine or unite with (another) for mutual benefit.
“temporary ally” and “left unity” are obviously not synonymous, but it would be disingenuous to ignore any overlap
I’ll accept that there’s some overlap, I don’t think that detracts from my point.
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?
No, I’m being mean because you’re being intellectually dishonest and wasting everybody’s time to make a pedantic, useless, and somehow still wrong, point.
Unless you want to talk about anything other than your pointless need to redefine “Left unity” into a thing it isn’t (and then failing to argue against that), we’re done. You pointless person.
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?