For us to be "absolutists" about compromise, we would first have to be offered a compromise. A compromise implies actually getting something that you want. We were given nothing, not listened to, no dialogue whatsoever, treated with contempt, not even purely symbolic gestures like allowing a Palestinian speaker at the convention. Meanwhile the Biden administration bypassed congress in order to flood Israel with weapons, while Harris did nothing to indicate she would act differently. To go along with that would not be a compromise, but total capitulation on everything we stand for, in exchange for nothing. That we are absolutely opposed to.

There may be some people who are absolutists regarding compromise, but all I can say is that those people haven't actually read theory. Even Lenin himself was highly critical of the position of "no compromises," but while making the distinction between compromise and capitulation.

But there isn't really a debate to be had about whether a compromise would have been acceptable in that situation because no compromise was ever offered to us for us to reject. Get them to give us an olive branch first, and if we reject it then you can accuse us of being absolutists.

Funny, bcs it's the Dems who are the absolutists on compromise. Never compromise with their own left flank, but compromise with fascists even when they could get everything they want without compromise.

It's funny because they are like, a living museum exhibit of why communism turns out the way it so often does.