h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]

Your proof is a fucking vlog. You have cited nothing except the Israeli narrative and your hemming and hawing doesnt take away from your total unciritcal support of Israeli lies

You are literally parroting the Israeli line verbatim subject to no critical thought whatsoever.

you can’t trust the pr of either side

uncritically trusts the pr of one side

The idea of productive discourse went out the window when you decided to replay 2003. Your trust is entirely with Israel and media sources that cite the IDF uncritically.

THEY LIVETWEETED THEIR BOMBING OF THE HOSPITAL THEN DELETED THE TWEETS AND SAID HAMAS DID IT.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point that it was not an Israeli airstrike,

Bet you believed in the WMDs too

Now that most credible sources in the first world agree that the IDF was probably not at fault for this particular atrocity

The source is “Trust me bro” from the IDF cited uncritically by news sources. Did you also believe there were WMDs in iraq and that anyone who didn’t fall for it was stupid?

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

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.

The popular fronts established by the soviet union lasted for 50 fucking years. You’re just being pedantic and useless on purpose.

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.

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?

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

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

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”

Demanding decorum is actual idealist crap

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.

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.