Can you explain what I’ve posted that’s fanfiction? I won’t deny that I often copy and paste replies I’ve already written, as most topics discussed aren’t genuinely new and I’ve usually discussed them before and see no need to artisinally craft each response, but I do take the allegations of fan-fiction seriously. Do you have an example?
I’d believe it if I were a bystander, povoq is doing this extremely well if he wants to validate my points uncontested. As funny as it would be, I am not secretly a solarpunk admin.
Edit: Edie is clearly joking, for whoever is downvoting it. Edie isn’t actually accusing me of making an alt to argue with.
Almost all state sponsored or (worse) self-serving “theory” from AES is fan-fiction and has little to do with reality for obvious reasons. The same is of course usually true for so called economic theory from liberal capitalist states.
What “obvious reasons?” The fact that socialist theory and history from socialists actually building socialism happens to back up their reasoning in most cases? There’s also critique and discussion of problems in existing socialism coming from AES countries as well. This is an utterly self-defeating argument that only validates those most removed from the actual practice of building socialism.
Again, to stress, your point is that we should inherently distrust those building socialism in real life, and only accept theory from those that are utterely disengaged from practice.
Further, there’s no critical examination of the merits of socialist theory and history produced by socialist countries on your part, the very fact that they are produced by the people actively building socialism is enough to discredit them in your views. Can you not see the logical trap? If you succeeded in building socialism and spoke about your experiences, successes, and failures, you would have to discredit yourself as fanfiction!
Should the merit of theory not be tested through practice?
Lol, you seriously think that the self-serving texts of counter-revolutionaries that ursurped control of the state are in any shape or form trustworthy? How removed from praxis and reality can you be?
From the provisional government that was formed after the February revolution that took power from the Tzar and started organizing elections, which the Bolshevik lost and then decided to take power by force.
The provisional government was a liberal, pro-capitalist government. The counter-revolutionary thing to do would be to protect the provisional government. Further, it was not a black and white case of the Bolsheviks losing elections, the various parties of the time formed coalitions, which legitimized the Bolshevik coalition, as well as the peasant elections that you’re ignoring.
Again more historical inaccuracies. The provisional government was a hodgepot of different ideas and it was very clear from the start that the rural socialist party would win the proposed election (as they did). These and somewhat allied anarchist thinkers proposed ideas that went well beyond the state-capitalism that the Bolshevik endorsed, so ursurping the provisional government and taking power in the november revolution by force was clearly counter-revolutionary. Coalitions that happened after that are sham when everyone just saw what happens when you stand in the way of how the Bolshevik take power.
Nope, no historical inaccuracies. You’re referring to the Right-SRs, who had recently split from the Left-SRs. The rural socialists banded together with the Bolsheviks in a coalition. You’re also ignoring that the workers and peasants already saw the provisional government as illegitimate, backing the Soviets. The anarchists may have had what they believed were good ideas, but the proletariat and peasantry largely disagreed and agreed with the socialists, who coalesced around the Bolsheviks.
I think the texts written by socialists building socialism are valuable insights into the actual struggles run into when building socialism. I also believe labeling them “counter-revolutionaries” without demonstrating how and why this is the case is an entirely ineffective means of argument, I’ve already made it clear that I consider socialist states to be real, and I back up those claims with historical and theoretical evidence when needed. Simply saying “no” is not an argument, and telling me I’m removed from praxis and reality when I know this isn’t the case is naked Ad Hominem.
Marxist theory is unconnected to reality, yet Marxists have historically been so good at understanding and changing reality that you complain about that too🤔
Marxist theory in so far as it was actually written by Marx and marxists (as opposed to marxist-leninists, a deviant offshot that is mainly just post-hoc justifications for people that ursuped state power for personal gain), is largely in agreement with anarchist theory and most of what Marx wrote in his younger days was summaries and borderline plagiats of earlier anarchist and socialist thinkers. It has some flaws, especially in regards to materialism though, and Marx himself became a reactionary after having a fallout with people that showed him the flaws in his arguments.
Lenin wrote his most critical theory before the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing socialism, for example, Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism was published in 1916, and built on his previous studies of imperialism via the Marxist method. Marxism-Leninism is the living Marxism carried forward to the era of imperialism, and is not a deviation from Marxism but a continuation of it. Marx never became a reactionary, it was the anarchist faction that failed to counter Marx and was thus expelled from the First International. Marx has no weaknesses with respect to materialism as far as I know.
It would help your points tremendously if you gave any examples of the flaws Marx supposedly has, or the ways Marxism-Leninism is a deviation, rather than a continuation. Instead, this seems to follow your strategy of subjectivism, just labeling things you don’t like as counter-revolutionary without critically analyzing them. If you could verbalize how and why you disagree with Marxism-Leninism and Marxism, it would help your arguments enormously, as it stands there’s 0 chance you’re convincing anyone here, who already largely agrees with Marxism-Leninism, or anyone looking on who can see the MLs bring receipts while you refuse to provide any.
I did provide plenty of arguments, but you seem to be so deep into the fan-fiction that you fail to understand them. And Materialism as proposed by Marx has little resemblence to how actual societies outside of some extreme resource starved communities work, and there is literally a hundred years plus of literature that shows so. That you still stick to a long disproven theory and see “no flaw” in it should give you plenty of thought about how up to date your other ideas are.
And yes, Lenin’s earlier works had very interested readers in the German state security aparatus at the time.
You did not provide arguments, you provided categorical declarations without backing them up or contextualizing them. Do you not see how enormously unproductive this is for bringing someone over to your side? Asserting that I simply “don’t understand” your supposed arguments is also not going to hold any water, everyone can see plain as day that I have carefully responded exactly to what you’ve been declaring.
As for materialism being disproven, again, you don’t explain how or why, you just say that it has been, and reference “a hundred plus years of literature” without giving any examples, or explaining how it’s supposedly wrong. Who are you trying to convince? Even for the sake of hypothetical, even if it was wrong, if your goal was to convince anyone of your argument, you’ve given them absolutely nothing to go off of to see if you’re correct. All you’ve done is legitimize Marx, Lenin, and myself with this level of logic.
As for Lenin’s theory, you still haven’t actually attacked it. You made the claim that it was all post-hoc, and when this was proven false, you deflected. This is just running away from the argument.
I ask you again: for what purpose are you commenting? Is this how you try to gain comrades in real life? Do you even try to do so?
I said the arguments of marxist-leninists are mostly post-hoc, and you responded with one example of an earlier text that Lenin wrote. Kinda funny that you chose to ignore that there are more marxist-leninist writers and the very term was coined by Stalin long after the Bolshevik ursurped power. I am sure you know this, so you are clearly not arguing in good faith.
Stalin, by his own admission, added very, very little to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is, at its core, laid out by Marx and Lenin. If you mean any retrospective analysis is “post-hoc justification,” then this is absurd as retrospection must be post-hoc. If you mean most arguments in general are post-hoc, then you’re ignoring the core of Marxism-Leninism that predates socialist states.
I’ve been arguing in good faith the entire time, asking you over and over for actual arguments and reading, and you respond with insult. Are you aware of how this presents to onlookers? Do you think you’re winning over others?
Can you explain what I’ve posted that’s fanfiction? I won’t deny that I often copy and paste replies I’ve already written, as most topics discussed aren’t genuinely new and I’ve usually discussed them before and see no need to artisinally craft each response, but I do take the allegations of fan-fiction seriously. Do you have an example?
Povoq is like… Your alt, right? The comments are essentially made to make you look reasonable and the other person ridiculous.
I’d believe it if I were a bystander, povoq is doing this extremely well if he wants to validate my points uncontested. As funny as it would be, I am not secretly a solarpunk admin.
Edit: Edie is clearly joking, for whoever is downvoting it. Edie isn’t actually accusing me of making an alt to argue with.
Almost all state sponsored or (worse) self-serving “theory” from AES is fan-fiction and has little to do with reality for obvious reasons. The same is of course usually true for so called economic theory from liberal capitalist states.
What “obvious reasons?” The fact that socialist theory and history from socialists actually building socialism happens to back up their reasoning in most cases? There’s also critique and discussion of problems in existing socialism coming from AES countries as well. This is an utterly self-defeating argument that only validates those most removed from the actual practice of building socialism.
Again, to stress, your point is that we should inherently distrust those building socialism in real life, and only accept theory from those that are utterely disengaged from practice.
Further, there’s no critical examination of the merits of socialist theory and history produced by socialist countries on your part, the very fact that they are produced by the people actively building socialism is enough to discredit them in your views. Can you not see the logical trap? If you succeeded in building socialism and spoke about your experiences, successes, and failures, you would have to discredit yourself as fanfiction!
Should the merit of theory not be tested through practice?
Lol, you seriously think that the self-serving texts of counter-revolutionaries that ursurped control of the state are in any shape or form trustworthy? How removed from praxis and reality can you be?
Usurped control of the state from…who?
From the provisional government that was formed after the February revolution that took power from the Tzar and started organizing elections, which the Bolshevik lost and then decided to take power by force.
The provisional government was a liberal, pro-capitalist government. The counter-revolutionary thing to do would be to protect the provisional government. Further, it was not a black and white case of the Bolsheviks losing elections, the various parties of the time formed coalitions, which legitimized the Bolshevik coalition, as well as the peasant elections that you’re ignoring.
Again more historical inaccuracies. The provisional government was a hodgepot of different ideas and it was very clear from the start that the rural socialist party would win the proposed election (as they did). These and somewhat allied anarchist thinkers proposed ideas that went well beyond the state-capitalism that the Bolshevik endorsed, so ursurping the provisional government and taking power in the november revolution by force was clearly counter-revolutionary. Coalitions that happened after that are sham when everyone just saw what happens when you stand in the way of how the Bolshevik take power.
Nope, no historical inaccuracies. You’re referring to the Right-SRs, who had recently split from the Left-SRs. The rural socialists banded together with the Bolsheviks in a coalition. You’re also ignoring that the workers and peasants already saw the provisional government as illegitimate, backing the Soviets. The anarchists may have had what they believed were good ideas, but the proletariat and peasantry largely disagreed and agreed with the socialists, who coalesced around the Bolsheviks.
I think the texts written by socialists building socialism are valuable insights into the actual struggles run into when building socialism. I also believe labeling them “counter-revolutionaries” without demonstrating how and why this is the case is an entirely ineffective means of argument, I’ve already made it clear that I consider socialist states to be real, and I back up those claims with historical and theoretical evidence when needed. Simply saying “no” is not an argument, and telling me I’m removed from praxis and reality when I know this isn’t the case is naked Ad Hominem.
Marxist theory is unconnected to reality, yet Marxists have historically been so good at understanding and changing reality that you complain about that too🤔
Marxist theory in so far as it was actually written by Marx and marxists (as opposed to marxist-leninists, a deviant offshot that is mainly just post-hoc justifications for people that ursuped state power for personal gain), is largely in agreement with anarchist theory and most of what Marx wrote in his younger days was summaries and borderline plagiats of earlier anarchist and socialist thinkers. It has some flaws, especially in regards to materialism though, and Marx himself became a reactionary after having a fallout with people that showed him the flaws in his arguments.
Lenin wrote his most critical theory before the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing socialism, for example, Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism was published in 1916, and built on his previous studies of imperialism via the Marxist method. Marxism-Leninism is the living Marxism carried forward to the era of imperialism, and is not a deviation from Marxism but a continuation of it. Marx never became a reactionary, it was the anarchist faction that failed to counter Marx and was thus expelled from the First International. Marx has no weaknesses with respect to materialism as far as I know.
It would help your points tremendously if you gave any examples of the flaws Marx supposedly has, or the ways Marxism-Leninism is a deviation, rather than a continuation. Instead, this seems to follow your strategy of subjectivism, just labeling things you don’t like as counter-revolutionary without critically analyzing them. If you could verbalize how and why you disagree with Marxism-Leninism and Marxism, it would help your arguments enormously, as it stands there’s 0 chance you’re convincing anyone here, who already largely agrees with Marxism-Leninism, or anyone looking on who can see the MLs bring receipts while you refuse to provide any.
I did provide plenty of arguments, but you seem to be so deep into the fan-fiction that you fail to understand them. And Materialism as proposed by Marx has little resemblence to how actual societies outside of some extreme resource starved communities work, and there is literally a hundred years plus of literature that shows so. That you still stick to a long disproven theory and see “no flaw” in it should give you plenty of thought about how up to date your other ideas are.
And yes, Lenin’s earlier works had very interested readers in the German state security aparatus at the time.
You did not provide arguments, you provided categorical declarations without backing them up or contextualizing them. Do you not see how enormously unproductive this is for bringing someone over to your side? Asserting that I simply “don’t understand” your supposed arguments is also not going to hold any water, everyone can see plain as day that I have carefully responded exactly to what you’ve been declaring.
As for materialism being disproven, again, you don’t explain how or why, you just say that it has been, and reference “a hundred plus years of literature” without giving any examples, or explaining how it’s supposedly wrong. Who are you trying to convince? Even for the sake of hypothetical, even if it was wrong, if your goal was to convince anyone of your argument, you’ve given them absolutely nothing to go off of to see if you’re correct. All you’ve done is legitimize Marx, Lenin, and myself with this level of logic.
As for Lenin’s theory, you still haven’t actually attacked it. You made the claim that it was all post-hoc, and when this was proven false, you deflected. This is just running away from the argument.
I ask you again: for what purpose are you commenting? Is this how you try to gain comrades in real life? Do you even try to do so?
I said the arguments of marxist-leninists are mostly post-hoc, and you responded with one example of an earlier text that Lenin wrote. Kinda funny that you chose to ignore that there are more marxist-leninist writers and the very term was coined by Stalin long after the Bolshevik ursurped power. I am sure you know this, so you are clearly not arguing in good faith.
Stalin, by his own admission, added very, very little to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is, at its core, laid out by Marx and Lenin. If you mean any retrospective analysis is “post-hoc justification,” then this is absurd as retrospection must be post-hoc. If you mean most arguments in general are post-hoc, then you’re ignoring the core of Marxism-Leninism that predates socialist states.
I’ve been arguing in good faith the entire time, asking you over and over for actual arguments and reading, and you respond with insult. Are you aware of how this presents to onlookers? Do you think you’re winning over others?