Irs not complicated. You are directly stating that the Israelis have to do genocide because its unrealistic that they don’t, and then asking us to think of the poor innocent israelis who may have to not live in a stolen home if they stop doing genocide.
Why is this only a relevant question now when it wasn’t before and only with regards to hypothetical Israelis and not actual Palestinians being actually displaced right now? Why should we care more about the rights of Israelis to not have to move than the rights of Palestinians who have been rendered stateless refugees for generations or put into concentration camps?
I.e. why do you assign worth to Israeli rights but not to Palestinian rights? Why does Israel get to steal Palestinian homes and declare “no backsies”?
I answered your question. You did not answer mine.
How about they move.out of the areas that Israel agrees are Palestine and into the areas they’re less blatantly stealing for a start. Your interjection is nonsensical when Israelis are, right now, seizing more and more from the Palestinians. Why is this "Where do they go? 😞 " question relevant only now and only one way? No one asked that question when the Palestinians were displaced, and now they’re just supposed to deal with that because it would suck for the colonizers to have to move back to where they came from? There are multigenerational refugees from Palestine, people whose parents and grandparents were also stateless refugees, and we’re supposed to feel bad for settlers? Fuck off.
That’s the point.
that is the exact point
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I always find it funny how hung up the media class has been on Keshoggi. Its a fairly intense bit of class solidarity I suppose. Like in terms of pointless and evil acts of the Saudi Arabia state it doesn’t even rank but its seemingly the only thing journalists remember
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.
They can move, you racist genocidal freak
And if somehow we have to accept that we can’t move any of them, they can stop preventing the Palestinians from moving home.