I didn't ignore anything you said, I outlined how leadership can solidify and embody an already existing political development (or in the case of the US, a social vibe) into actualized political power

1. You ignored most of what I said, including what I drew attention to when saying this.
2. Does "leadership can solidy and embody [a] political development [...] into actualized policital power" mean something to you? It reads as word salad to me, the kind of language vague electoralists use when they want to sound socialist. You know, fake it. I thought the priority was "utility" to stop the genocide of Palestine? That was at least a tiny bit more concrete.

Now, you want to continuously misrepresent that as me not giving people "credit"

I haven't misrepresented you at all. As I explained, and as you are ignoring yet again, your focus on giving credit to bourgeois politicians and reversing the causative roles is incorrect. It is a wrong political understanding. In addition to them being opportunist, your line of thought is opportunist. I pointed out that if anyone is to be given credit for normalizing antizionism, it is the Palestinian resistance, and not where you have chosen to place that focus in this conversation.

when all I've done the whole time is point to the necessity of structural utility i.e. anti-Zionists in positions OF POWER

Now it's structural utility. Just words. Do they mean anything?

Is Mamdani antizionist if his orientation towards it is opportunist? What of the NYC DSA liberals that consistently opposed it right up until they could cynically used it? What is the value of them having "POWER", and what is this so-called "POWER" when it's used to send cops to defend Zionist stolen land sales? There is an inconsistency between the material reality and this vague optimistic electoralist posting. Mamdani is not even some vanguard of a socialist party to whom he's beholden, he's literally a bourgeois politician who owes nothing to anyone, you might as well be defending any random liberal that says "I'm against the genocide". But also speaking in terms as if he's part of us, or some grander strategy, or the "movement", whatever that is.

Uh, yes when a campaign wins it's typically because it was persuasive (are we being for real?)

I'm trying to understand your circuitous language and vague references. This is what I was trying to understand: "The bulk of Americans who didn't care when university students were brutalized by zionist hate mobs and police, but will now vote for politicians who utilize anti-zionism as a persuasive campaign strategy." So again it's just that weird proximity of language thing, where you try to imply that two or three things are directly related (otherwise there is no meaning at all): that his campaign won, that it had antizionist messaging, and that his voters didn't care about state violence against pro-Palestine protesters. This is quite the claim if we are to believe they are related to one another. Tell me how they are related, or if not, explain why you implied they were.

so basically now you're arguing that anti-Zionism actually has no utility in campaigns and isn't politically persuasive to voters, basically the DNC line on pro-Palestinian politics. Nice knot you tied yourself into

Uh no? That doesn't follow. And I've said repeatedly that liberal and socdem bourgeois politicians will gladly make use of, and coopt, various movements once they are already popular enough. I think it's kind of obvious that they try to use them to further their careers, including election prospects. Isn't it obvious?

Which of my conceptions are pseudo-anarchist?

Your idea that "credit" (or more accurately in my argument, utility) can't be given to leadership because a pre-existing movement or sentiment somehow means leaders are worthless tail-enders.

1. That has nothing to do with anarchism. Maybe your vague undefined goalpost of "pseudo-anarchism" has some special hidden meaning, though. You certainly didn't explain.
2. You're being vague with the "leadership" thing again. Leadership of what? What is Mamdani the leader of in this context? The antizionist movement in the US? Laughable.

For maybe the 6th or 7th time, you are completey backwards in your attribution of cause and effect regarding the popularization of antizionism in the US. You seem to think the bourgeois politicians using it are pushing it forward rather than tailing it, despite using the term tailing. Is it leadership pushing forward "the movement" or is it opporutnist tailing? Because I know it's the latter but you seem very confused.

Leaders bad

Pure invention on your part. Please retract or demonstrate your claim on this.

spontaneous, vibe-based movement good

The Palestinian resistance is not a spontaneous, vibes-based movement. It seems you don't even know the topic we are discussing. Like... at all?

hence my use of the term "pseudo-anarchist."

I think it's just a soft attempt at insult. It doesn't make any sense and required putting quite a few words in my mouth.

Nice try, I didn't compare Lenin to Mamdani, I used Lenin as an example of why leadership is crucial to the development of a movement

And Mamdani is the "leadership" you're otherwise referring to, so therefore you are making that exact comparison. And it is invalid, for the reasons I've already stated regarding opportunist bourgeois politicians vs. leaders beholen to an organization. This is literally opportunist logic, like old-school opportunist nonsense from the 1910s.

even if the movement preconfigured the leadership, that point is made completely irrespective of the qualities of Mamdani

I strongly disagree that the point has been made. You've been vague and primarily leveraged jargon and comparisons rather than actually clearly stating what is actually happening, concretely. and how the critiques you are responding to are wrong. I make a specific criticism, you retreat to vague "but leadership is something, right??? Remember Lenin?" posts.

because I'm swinging an axe at the foundation of your political premises, not your irrational hatred of Mamdani

I don't hate Mamdani, I barely even think about him. I do take issue with false uses of Marxist language and thinking to defend him doing opportunist things. As if it's smart and strategic to backtrack, as if you are of his side, rather than literally exactly what you would expect from a self-serving opportunism masquerading as part of any "movement" you and I would share. Please try to do better in addressing what I actually say instead of inventing positions on my part.

I certainly don't feel like anyone is swinging an axe at my political foundations, lmao. This is like virtually every conversation I have ever had with a DSA electoralist. They kind of just make things up as they go. At the moment I'm just being somewhat entertained given the string of comments that are like 50% straw men and deflections. I don't even know what political foundations you'd be swinging an axe at. Maybe you'd like to tell me what you think they are? Provide quotes, please, since your claims about me rarely match what I've said.

We are talking about the internal politics of the United States of America, the Palestinian resistance does not have a power base or social-political standing in the United States

We are discussing the normalization of antizionism, implicitly primarily in the United States (technically we did not actually restrict our statements to the US, but sure whatever). Regarding the normalization of antizionism, the Palestinian resistance has had inifnitely more impact than Zohran Mamdani and DSA electoralists. The latter are trailing, or hey let's rhyme, tailing existing popularity and normalization. So where did the latter come from? Certainly not the folks you're placing emphasis on.

It came from months and months of seeing genocidal violence on social media.

Those publications came from Palestine, from the resistance, from people who would get videos smuggled out or with difficult to access networks, peple taking real personal risks to do this. They became particularly popular on TikTok, where imperialists realized they didn't have as much control as they usually have over propaganda narratives (and have since taken material action, as we know). The resistance provided the narratives that opportunists now half-quote, the evidence, the faces to it, and there were organized campaigns to hold clear lines on these topics, to use media strategies by which to spread understanding, to organize events that mobilized, educated, enjoined people into the work. The student protests on campuses drew from and built on this momentum, and although not particularly well organized or strategic, were at least concrete, demanding defunding of zionist investments. Labor became involved, both through those protests and before, through work in UFCW, in UAW, with the extremely active Starbucks workers, amplifying the messaging and enjoining it in class struggle work. And of course socialist and adjascent groups did the bulk of on the ground organizing.

Through this extended process of observing genocide, of hearing the correct antizionist narratives repeated over and over again, of participating in of seeing the responses to those working against genocide, the normalization of antizionism in the US gained steam, the process far from complete.

Note that absolutely none of that was, "a bourgeous opportunist politician said Free Palestine a year and a half later". That is an outcome of the normalization far more than any kind of cause. This is maybe the 7th, 8th time I've stated this? You have never acknowledged this point.

I will half to split my reply in 2.