I found it funny that your own snippet of theory was substantially more supportive of my position
Which, to be clear, was not even remotely true, as I demonstrated. No that I have spent time demonstrating that you are objectively wrong about Lenin’s historical positions, you are now accusing me of blinding following them, when all I’ve done is clarify what they are, against you absurd attempts to misconstrue and twist around his words.
They are based on reason, informed by history and theory, but not blindly.
My rock solid point is not “Demonstrate ideological purity and ability to cite theory” as yours seems to be.
Your foundation is demonstrating ideological purity, so if Lenin says something detrimental to that purity, you are compelled to selectively choose only that which supports purity.
An argument isn’t “valid” because a famous theorist wrote it down 100 years ago. I never claimed otherwise, there is no flip, you just don’t understand the concept of favoring reason to theory.
And that’s why the whole ML movement I see here is doomed. Everyone who questions your favored theorist is a “liberal” and must be shamed. You’ve elevated ancient theory to sacred scripture, and perverted the rational pursuit for political efficacy into a religious devotion.
Literally every word of this is just baseless nonsense, over and over again.
I cited Lenin for a couple specific purposes, first, to establish that my positions are part of a broader leftist intellectual tradition, second, because I personally find his arguments compelling and relevant.
For the third time, I will point out that you claimed that you could support your positions with theory, which you have not done, and have now flipped to saying that theory is irrelevant, accusing me of “blindly following it” merely for citing and referencing it - after you asked me to, by the way! When I said that I had read theory and could defend my positions in the context of it, you called me out for not having done so, when I then did so, you called me out for doing so. It’s absolutely absurd.
It’s obvious that you are no operating on any kind of rational basis, but rather blind loyalty to the Democratic party.
I cited Lenin for a couple specific purposes, first, to establish that my positions are part of a broader leftist intellectual tradition, second, because I personally find his arguments compelling and relevant.
Yes, the leftist tradition of deifying outdated theorists. That is a tradition I’m happy to abandon.
I will point out that you claimed that you could support your positions with theory, which you have not done, and have now flipped to saying that theory is irrelevant, accusing me of “blindly following it”
I could. Gramsci, Bernstein, Kautsky, and every other shade of reformist who quite correctly pointed out the dangers of premature revolution, including the inherent instability and susceptibility to dictatorship, and highlighted the necessity to favorably shift the cultural hegemony before trying direct political action. I don’t need to cite theory for this, history shows it quite clearly. But I could, I just don’t think appeals to authority are reasonable arguments.
If you find the arguments, suited to a population fresh from revolution in transitional parliamentary government less than 5 years old, to be compelling strategy for a deeply propagandized population in an established 250 year old parliamentary government, you’re not suited to disseminate strategic opinions. You’re better suited to academia, where you can opine about historical theories with other theory-junkies.
But hey, keep trying to fix your computer with steam engine manuals. I’m sure alienating the leftists who try to save you, and everyone else, from your myopic ideological mistakes will shift the American cultural hegemony to revolution. Who cares about dialectics anyway?
I suppose that virtually every academic or scientific paper in history is guilty of “deification” because they cite other works. I guess I’m “deifying” you too, because I’ve quoted things you’ve said.
Nothing I believe is on the basis of, “because Lenin said so.” Nor do I believe in blindly applying his strategies regardless of material conditions. These are entirely baseless accusations, and there is nothing I’ve said that you can point to as evidence of them. I agree with Lenin’s perspective to an extent, from a reasoned, critical position. But it seems that anything short of blind rejection of everything he said counts as “blindly following” by your standards.
We haven’t even really begun to examine the questions of whether his ideas were correct or whether they are applicable to today. All I’ve done is present what they are and refuted your nonsensical attempts to twist his words around.
I suppose that virtually every academic or scientific paper in history is guilty of “deification” because they cite other works.
Uh, what? That’s a bad joke, right? You know that’s not how academic citations work, right? Forget what I said about academia, that’s not for you either.
These are entirely baseless accusations
Mr. “Everyone who criticizes me is a liberal” is against base**less accusations now? Spare me your crocodile tears.
and there is nothing I’ve said that you can point me as evidence of them.
We haven’t even really begun to examine the questions of whether his ideas were correct or whether they are applicable to today.
You know the neat thing about text based conversations is you can go back for receipts, right?
because I personally find his arguments compelling and relevant.
And you keep saying I pressed you on theory, which is completely backwards. That was all you champ.
For example, the fact that I’ve read leftist theory and can cite it to support my positions
For someone who claims to read so much theory, your reading comprehension is not good.
But we’ve passed the point that I feel like entertaining your bad faith projection. We’re done here.
Great! I knew this wasn’t going to go anywhere from the start, as I said. You haven’t said a single thing worth reading in this whole conversation, or in any other comment I’ve ever seen you make. So this seems like a good a time as any to simply block you.
Which, to be clear, was not even remotely true, as I demonstrated. No that I have spent time demonstrating that you are objectively wrong about Lenin’s historical positions, you are now accusing me of blinding following them, when all I’ve done is clarify what they are, against you absurd attempts to misconstrue and twist around his words.
Literally every word of this is just baseless nonsense, over and over again.
I cited Lenin for a couple specific purposes, first, to establish that my positions are part of a broader leftist intellectual tradition, second, because I personally find his arguments compelling and relevant.
For the third time, I will point out that you claimed that you could support your positions with theory, which you have not done, and have now flipped to saying that theory is irrelevant, accusing me of “blindly following it” merely for citing and referencing it - after you asked me to, by the way! When I said that I had read theory and could defend my positions in the context of it, you called me out for not having done so, when I then did so, you called me out for doing so. It’s absolutely absurd.
It’s obvious that you are no operating on any kind of rational basis, but rather blind loyalty to the Democratic party.
Yes, the leftist tradition of deifying outdated theorists. That is a tradition I’m happy to abandon.
I could. Gramsci, Bernstein, Kautsky, and every other shade of reformist who quite correctly pointed out the dangers of premature revolution, including the inherent instability and susceptibility to dictatorship, and highlighted the necessity to favorably shift the cultural hegemony before trying direct political action. I don’t need to cite theory for this, history shows it quite clearly. But I could, I just don’t think appeals to authority are reasonable arguments.
If you find the arguments, suited to a population fresh from revolution in transitional parliamentary government less than 5 years old, to be compelling strategy for a deeply propagandized population in an established 250 year old parliamentary government, you’re not suited to disseminate strategic opinions. You’re better suited to academia, where you can opine about historical theories with other theory-junkies.
But hey, keep trying to fix your computer with steam engine manuals. I’m sure alienating the leftists who try to save you, and everyone else, from your myopic ideological mistakes will shift the American cultural hegemony to revolution. Who cares about dialectics anyway?
I suppose that virtually every academic or scientific paper in history is guilty of “deification” because they cite other works. I guess I’m “deifying” you too, because I’ve quoted things you’ve said.
Nothing I believe is on the basis of, “because Lenin said so.” Nor do I believe in blindly applying his strategies regardless of material conditions. These are entirely baseless accusations, and there is nothing I’ve said that you can point to as evidence of them. I agree with Lenin’s perspective to an extent, from a reasoned, critical position. But it seems that anything short of blind rejection of everything he said counts as “blindly following” by your standards.
We haven’t even really begun to examine the questions of whether his ideas were correct or whether they are applicable to today. All I’ve done is present what they are and refuted your nonsensical attempts to twist his words around.
Uh, what? That’s a bad joke, right? You know that’s not how academic citations work, right? Forget what I said about academia, that’s not for you either.
Mr. “Everyone who criticizes me is a liberal” is against base**less accusations now? Spare me your crocodile tears.
You know the neat thing about text based conversations is you can go back for receipts, right?
And you keep saying I pressed you on theory, which is completely backwards. That was all you champ.
For someone who claims to read so much theory, your reading comprehension is not good.
But we’ve passed the point that I feel like entertaining your bad faith projection. We’re done here.
Great! I knew this wasn’t going to go anywhere from the start, as I said. You haven’t said a single thing worth reading in this whole conversation, or in any other comment I’ve ever seen you make. So this seems like a good a time as any to simply block you.