Back in the day, runaway slave Frederick Douglas backed Abe Lincoln for President over a candidate who was for total abolition of slavery. Lincoln was open to abolition, and Douglas decided that it was better to have the ear of a sitting President over backing someone who had no chance of winning.
Bayard Ruskin was MLK’s right hand man. Ruskin was invaluable in the Civil Rights battle. Ruskin was gay, and decided that it would be counter-productive to push of LGBT rights in the 1960s.
During WW2, Communists happily accepted aid from racist america and colonial England because they knew Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were much worse.
No questions. Thank you for illustrating how minorities are so oppressed that they are forced to support any power and not bother their masters just for a slim chance of not being totally wiped out.
How about now we stop and organise? I don’t like the taste of boots.
How about now we stop and organise? I don’t like the taste of boots.
Those folks were organizing, you are the one trying to insult them by implying they weren’t.
And if you think I misunderstood what you wrote you could be humble and accept it and delete your comment. You could accept the idea that you didn’t write clearly. I mean, you did misspell ‘organise.’ Maybe you made some other mistakes? Isn’t that possible?
So no, you don’t know what forced means ok. It means there are no choices, zero, nada.
I’m not insulting them, I’m pointing out that a choice between dying and obedience is NOT a choice and it CAN NOT be used to prove how compromising with fascists works. It doesn’t and they weren’t, they were forced to comply.
Organise is british. I know many british words like “wanker”, “cunt” or “arsehole”. Maybe you misplaced your manners? Isn’t that possible?
There’s pretty clearly a big difference between saying we cannot ally with the DNC and must organize outside of that, vs saying cooperation itself is bad and we should organize on our own.
Every proletarian has been through strikes and has experienced “compromises” with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers have had to return to work either without having achieved anything or else agreeing to only a partial satisfaction of their demands. Every proletarian—as a result of the conditions of the mass struggle and the acute intensification of class antagonisms he lives among—sees the difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation and exhaustion)—a compromise which in no way minimizes the revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle on the part of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise—and, on the other hand, a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to objective causes their self-interest (strike-breakers also enter into “compromises”!), their cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery from the capitalists.
In other words, you can’t really say that compromise in general is good or bad. It depends on the specifics of the situation. There are plenty of cases where compromise is the best way to advance one’s interests, but if you commit to one path or the other, you’re showing your hand too early. If the party you’re negotiating with knows ahead of time that you’re committed to compromising, then they’re not going to offer very much to do it, but if you never accept compromise, then you may miss out on a mutually beneficial arrangement.
There are historical examples where compromise was necessary, but there have also been cases where it wasn’t. If you’re going to take a position that says compromise is generally preferable, I’d ask whether that includes, for example, trying to find a compromise with Russia over Ukraine. Because it seems like the same people who say that the left has to compromise and sacrifice every demand will also call for fighting to the last Ukrainian and not giving up an inch of territory. That makes me think that it’s less about whether compromise is good or bad, and more about what we consider worth fighting for and what points we see as negotiable.
History time.
Back in the day, runaway slave Frederick Douglas backed Abe Lincoln for President over a candidate who was for total abolition of slavery. Lincoln was open to abolition, and Douglas decided that it was better to have the ear of a sitting President over backing someone who had no chance of winning.
Bayard Ruskin was MLK’s right hand man. Ruskin was invaluable in the Civil Rights battle. Ruskin was gay, and decided that it would be counter-productive to push of LGBT rights in the 1960s.
During WW2, Communists happily accepted aid from racist america and colonial England because they knew Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were much worse.
Questions?
No questions. Thank you for illustrating how minorities are so oppressed that they are forced to support any power and not bother their masters just for a slim chance of not being totally wiped out.
How about now we stop and organise? I don’t like the taste of boots.
So, in your mind escaped slave Frederick Douglas was a bootlicker?
Bayard Ruskin? WW2 partisans?
Please make your explanation as elaborate as possible.
Do you know the meaning of “forced”? I put it in bold :(
If I put a gun at your head and I kindly ask you to choose between licking my boot or die, are you a bootlicker?
What do you mean you don’t have a choice? Dying is a choice. Try to be more grateful.
How about now we stop and organise? I don’t like the taste of boots.
Those folks were organizing, you are the one trying to insult them by implying they weren’t.
And if you think I misunderstood what you wrote you could be humble and accept it and delete your comment. You could accept the idea that you didn’t write clearly. I mean, you did misspell ‘organise.’ Maybe you made some other mistakes? Isn’t that possible?
So no, you don’t know what forced means ok. It means there are no choices, zero, nada.
I’m not insulting them, I’m pointing out that a choice between dying and obedience is NOT a choice and it CAN NOT be used to prove how compromising with fascists works. It doesn’t and they weren’t, they were forced to comply.
Organise is british. I know many british words like “wanker”, “cunt” or “arsehole”. Maybe you misplaced your manners? Isn’t that possible?
Right to insult like ‘wanker?’
Great way to build a strong organization.
So more than a hundred years later, free US citizens are no better in terms of options and opportunities than a runaway slave?
So you think cooperation is bad and everyone should organize on their own?
No wonder why the left is so fractured
There’s pretty clearly a big difference between saying we cannot ally with the DNC and must organize outside of that, vs saying cooperation itself is bad and we should organize on our own.
Cooperation with the enemy in a war against the enemy… is bad.
Serious answer:
-“No Compromises?” Lenin.
In other words, you can’t really say that compromise in general is good or bad. It depends on the specifics of the situation. There are plenty of cases where compromise is the best way to advance one’s interests, but if you commit to one path or the other, you’re showing your hand too early. If the party you’re negotiating with knows ahead of time that you’re committed to compromising, then they’re not going to offer very much to do it, but if you never accept compromise, then you may miss out on a mutually beneficial arrangement.
There are historical examples where compromise was necessary, but there have also been cases where it wasn’t. If you’re going to take a position that says compromise is generally preferable, I’d ask whether that includes, for example, trying to find a compromise with Russia over Ukraine. Because it seems like the same people who say that the left has to compromise and sacrifice every demand will also call for fighting to the last Ukrainian and not giving up an inch of territory. That makes me think that it’s less about whether compromise is good or bad, and more about what we consider worth fighting for and what points we see as negotiable.
deleted by creator