I’m not disagreeing with you here on whether or not the USSR is good or bad, that’s not my point.
My point is that if both person A and person B want worker ownership and person C wants a dictatorship of Capitalism, then person A and B should ally, even if temporarily.
Let’s say you and I align politically 99%. Our only point of contention is that I want to kill or jail you specifically. Are you going to ally with me and hope I change my mind later?
This is exaggerated to make a point, not a direct analogy.
Not necessarily, I’m saying your hypothetical lacks necessary information.
Presently, you’ve framed it in an Idealist manner, not a Materialist one. People’s views aren’t selected by a Random Number Generator in real life, they are the consequence of their Material Conditions. Matter creates thought, ideas do not create matter.
Looking at our hypothetical, you have a Leftist with the currently unexplained ideal that I personally should die for no reason. This doesn’t make any practical sense, so we cannot apply this theory to practice.
In the case of this entire meme, there exists a divide, generally, between Marxists and Anarchists. Using your example of a Stalin defender, which situation is more realistic?
A: A Leftist believes everything the US state department has levied against Stalin is true, he killed 200 million people and murdered puppies, and believes that this is good, actually, and we should do more of it?
B: A Leftist believes nothing the US state department has said is true, and believes Stalin to be the second coming of Jesus Christ and Marx himself, and believes this to be a good thing?
Neither are realistic, but A makes far less internal sense, and cannot be reasoned with, as mass cruelty is the point. Person B, however, could be misled and instead worked with. Person B has good intentions with a faulty understanding, person A has bad intentions with a faulty understanding.
Do you see my point? Without knowing the origin of views, how can we hope to address them and how to deal with them?
Ostensible leftist that knows what horrific things Stalin did, but thinks they weren’t that bad or even good, somehow. It’s even more detached from reality than example A. Spend some time on lemmygrad and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
That didn’t really answer my question, did it? Do you agree that the why of views matters in many ways more than the views themselves when it comes to seeing if someone can be swayed or not?
I’m not disagreeing with you here on whether or not the USSR is good or bad, that’s not my point.
My point is that if both person A and person B want worker ownership and person C wants a dictatorship of Capitalism, then person A and B should ally, even if temporarily.
Person B is also a fascist, and should be let nowhere near power because they will purge person A the first second they can.
Even if they want 94% of the same things?
We aren’t talking about MAGA Communists or PatSocs.
Let’s say you and I align politically 99%. Our only point of contention is that I want to kill or jail you specifically. Are you going to ally with me and hope I change my mind later?
This is exaggerated to make a point, not a direct analogy.
What are the foundations of wanting to kill or jail me? Seems important, no?
You’re saying if I have a good reason, you’re OK with it?
Not necessarily, I’m saying your hypothetical lacks necessary information.
Presently, you’ve framed it in an Idealist manner, not a Materialist one. People’s views aren’t selected by a Random Number Generator in real life, they are the consequence of their Material Conditions. Matter creates thought, ideas do not create matter.
Looking at our hypothetical, you have a Leftist with the currently unexplained ideal that I personally should die for no reason. This doesn’t make any practical sense, so we cannot apply this theory to practice.
In the case of this entire meme, there exists a divide, generally, between Marxists and Anarchists. Using your example of a Stalin defender, which situation is more realistic?
A: A Leftist believes everything the US state department has levied against Stalin is true, he killed 200 million people and murdered puppies, and believes that this is good, actually, and we should do more of it?
B: A Leftist believes nothing the US state department has said is true, and believes Stalin to be the second coming of Jesus Christ and Marx himself, and believes this to be a good thing?
Neither are realistic, but A makes far less internal sense, and cannot be reasoned with, as mass cruelty is the point. Person B, however, could be misled and instead worked with. Person B has good intentions with a faulty understanding, person A has bad intentions with a faulty understanding.
Do you see my point? Without knowing the origin of views, how can we hope to address them and how to deal with them?
You left out C.
Ostensible leftist that knows what horrific things Stalin did, but thinks they weren’t that bad or even good, somehow. It’s even more detached from reality than example A. Spend some time on lemmygrad and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
That didn’t really answer my question, did it? Do you agree that the why of views matters in many ways more than the views themselves when it comes to seeing if someone can be swayed or not?
So you’re basically saying that independent thought is a myth. What heinous material conditions forced you to come up with THAT turd? 🤦
I am not. I am saying that people are products of their environment. Someone raised with no concept of “Jupiter” wouldn’t think about Jupiter.