Okay I'll give him another shot even though he usually annoys me
Barx
joined 5 months ago
Why are you posting memes, liberal? This is a theory instance.
Drop down and give me 20 Gramsci recitations from memory!
You seem to be unable to not simply make things up on my behalf. I do, actually, get to decide when something is not worth my time and set my own conditions on reading or replying to what you say.
Since this is 3 times in a row I'm not gonna expect a change. Let me know if you change your mind, but otherwise I won't be replying.
lmao they are amazing
This is the problem with internet Bolsheviks you envision yourself as Central Committe members in 1949 at the height of the glory of the Soviet Union
I set my conditions for engaging and you seem uninterested in honoring them. Namely, that you reply to what I actually say and not go off in straw men instead, which is clearly just a pattern of dishonest guessed-at sectarian insults.
Please do your best to engage in good faith and in a comradely way.
A powerful way to get people to be receptive is to get them to like you and consider you a font of wisdom. This does not require pushing them, just being available and usually correct and a person they enjoy spending time with. I would recommend honoring their wishes and reading more so that you're ready when questions do come down the pipeline.
Also you don't need to convince them all by yourself as a first step. You could try to get them involved in events they would find worthwhile instead and let the radicalization happen socially. If they are borderline anarcho-syndicalist then maybe they'd want to support a picket line, for example. Maybe there are people looking for help on projects your friend would find interesting.
Hell yeah.
Cook them extra long to get softer hummus. If you are very dedicated to getting a perfect texture also remove the skins once cooked.
Mao had the means and ability but chose not to out of respect for the mass line.
YOUR BODY BETRAYS YOUR PROBLEMATIC HOT TAKE
"just as bad" as whom?
I am referencing your knee-jerk "both sides" rhetoric that pops up instead of even acknowledging the point I've made.
and which "false histories"
The ones I have already corrected you on, such as the Black Army "overperforming". It performed as well as any guerilla group under circumstances favorable to guerillas of the time, i.e. with sufficient support from the peasantry. Given how dramatically it ultimately failed, and its many faults, this is really a romantic characterization that doesn't do justice to anyone involved. Did they really overperform? How well "should" they have performed? Such ahistorical romantic characterizations, along with backstabbing narratives, are the main theme of "anti-Marxist" mythologies among self-proclaimed Western anarchists.
How many of these peasants were voluntarily taxed? How was that bayonette any different than the one weilded by Tsar Nicholas II? Was it because it was Red?
I'm unaware of anyone that is voluntarily taxed.
However, this is going in an oddly sectarian direction whete you are missing the point being made to go for a "both sides" attack. This is actually doing the thing my point is criticizing. Why do the Bolsheviks have to be "just as bad" in order for you to acknowledge falee histories? When did I suggest this was the kind of discussion I was having?
If you can trim your responses to a recognition of what I am actually saying instead of getting angry at the partisan in your head and projecting them onto me, I will continue engaging. Otherwise, I am not interested in feeding into this or playing around with your straw men.
The anti-woke police deprived us of Picard's gams.