I think OP is just a genuine fucking idiot and the reason they can’t answer seriously in a single conversation in this thread is because there’s just nothing behind their eyes to respond with
I’m not particularly putting words in your mouth, I am giving an opinion on what you said (or, rather, the subgenre of statement). You could explain, if you were so inclined, how this characterization is inaccurate rather than merely saying that it is inaccurate, but then that would require something other than a listicle on Wikipedia.
Why should I argue “I’m not an elephant” as we say in my country? This is patently absurd. You erected a strawman and I called you out. As far as I’m concerned, case closed, unless you can point where in my words I acted like a marginalized class because of historical anarchists.
Look again at the fucking meme in the OP. “oh, the tankies killed us anarchists in these historical conflicts, and they will kill us anarchists in future conflicts too if we don’t stop them!”
Just saying a fucking fallacy name isn’t a counterargument anymore than saying “you’re wrong” is a counterargument. Actual arguments require making inferences, not just stating premises.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it’s not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that’s just me.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it’s not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that’s just me.
I applaud your Quixotic efforts to get them to argue about the topic instead of arguing about the meta argument in the most self aggrieved way.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it’s not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that’s just me.
If we were in a hypothetical revolutionary situation led by anarchists that was genuinely and successfully challenging state capitalist power here in the UK then I, as a Marxist-Leninist, wouldn’t be like “Erm, guys, you haven’t sufficiently considered Lenin! Aren’t you aware that the hijacking and reconfiguration of the state for socialist purposes is a necessary transition period towards communism?” I would get behind the fucking barricades with them.
There’s a difference between opposing lesser evilism in the context of Western capitalist electoral politics between two bourgeois parties, and like, being anti-ML or anti-anarchist in actual revolutionary situations (and not stupid fucking hypothetical internet arguments) because “it’s not doing communism right.” Unless there were like, REALLY fucking big problems with what the group is doing, I would just shut up and not weaken the overall movement. As Awoo stated, this is literally what ML groups are doing in Palestine as we speak.
If we were in a hypothetical revolutionary situation led by anarchists that was genuinely and successfully challenging state capitalist power here in the UK then I, as a Marxist-Leninist, wouldn’t be like “Erm, guys, you haven’t sufficiently considered Lenin! Aren’t you aware that the hijacking and reconfiguration of the state for socialist purposes is a necessary transition period towards communism?” I would get behind the fucking barricades with them.
That’s exactly what happened in Spain though. The revolution was an anarchist affair, and while MLs fought with, they demanded anarchists become MLs if they wanted bullets.
To whom, under what conditions. We have plenty of evidence that Stalin wanted to crush the anarchists in spain. Again, I don’t go into the debate here. There’s plenty of other people who will happily debate you on this
They did the same thing in supporting the Kuomintang from the Japanese conquest of China right up until the Maoists pushed them out of the mainland. Do you think that perhaps inferior methods of military and industrial organization could have played a part in this, or should Mao have called Stalin red fash and given up?
Look again at the fucking meme in the OP. “oh, the tankies killed us anarchists in these historical conflicts, and they will kill us anarchists in future conflicts too if we don’t stop them!”
No, it means “Don’t trust tankies, don’t believe their tales in leftist unity”. Even if we just accept what you just wrote, it’s still nowhere near claiming we’re a marginalized class. That’s just a very uncharitable reading of this meme.
Just saying a fucking fallacy name isn’t a counterargument anymore than saying “you’re wrong” is a counterargument. Actual arguments require making inferences, not just stating premises.
Yes it fucking is! I don’t have the patience to argue every inane claim people are throwing in here. I got shit to do.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick
I wouldn’t call them “counter-revolutionary” as there’s nothing revolutionary about supporting the status quo, but otherwise we agree.
and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it’s not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that’s just me.
We also agree. But typically it’s the MLs who refuse to support such anarchist projects because they’re not led by MLs hierarchically.
Even if we just accept what you just wrote, it’s still nowhere near claiming we’re a marginalized class.
“Sure, it claims anarchists were historically marginalized and will be marginalized in the future if we don’t learn from lessons of the past, but your saying we are claiming to be marginalized is uncharitable.”
Yes it fucking is!
“Nuh-uh” “Yuh-huh” “Nuh-uh” – an argument, I guess
I wouldn’t call them “counter-revolutionary” as there’s nothing revolutionary about supporting the status quo, but otherwise we agree.
If they are trying to reverse the revolution that put the institution in place, that is counterrevolutionary.
We also agree. But typically it’s the MLs who refuse to support such anarchist projects because they’re not led by MLs hierarchically.
I’ll keep it simple since you’re such a busy bee. You remember Mao-era China? You know, the thing you represent in the meme with a racial caricature killing Manchurian commune people and “intellectuals”? The PRC of that era was, every day, developing and bringing healthcare, land rights (mainly for food), and education to hundreds of millions of people. The CPC under Mao did more to uplift the poor and oppressed than every single little syndicate in the history of the fucking world combined, but here all it gets is to be tarred as butchers on the basis of some obscure commune project and the plight of actual fucking rightists arguing against socialism (or so I must conclude from history I am familiar with, since the accusation is very vague), over a claim that I am pretty sure Mao never actually made.
If you were sincere in wanting to have the people fed and clothed first and foremost, your objection to MLs would be – at its most pointed – on a maoist basis. But instead you’re absorbed in this inexplicable factionalism over communes that has completely warped your historical perspective to the point that you don’t seem to understand the absurd error of scale in your claims.
Nah mate. (No I am not going to argue uncharitable interpretations made up to make gotchas)
If they are trying to reverse the revolution that put the institution in place, that is counterrevolutionary.
I accept that you understand tautologies.
If you were sincere in wanting to have the people fed and clothed first and foremost, your objection to MLs would be – at its most pointed – on a maoist basis.
Yawn. This shit is the same arguments Capitalists make every day about “the benefits of capitalism.”
You are conflating generic progress and science with your chosen system. All that would have happened anyway whether they were State Capitalist as they are, or straight up Capitalist as they’re becoming.
And now you are, in order to conflate me with capitalists, yourself regurgitating capitalist propaganda! Remember, I’m not talking about Deng and the “Chinese Miracle” (which I think is a mischaracterization by liberals), I am specifically talking about Mao-era China, where the use of things like agricultural collectives was a major element in the reduction of poverty that liberal economists had no interest in accounting for.
But to consider the progress that China has made merely the inevitable motion of science and capitalism is literally liberal revisionism! Inventions serve mainly to impoverish if the people who own and control those inventions are not the workers! Just look at the cotton gin if you need an easy example, and perhaps see that the Luddites had a point in their angle of economic self-defense (though this should by no means be conflated with primitivism).
People were fed who were not fed before, people could read who could not read before, peasants no longer had to surrender 90% of their harvest to landlords, childhood mortality plummeted. These are things you can say about China under Mao (and, to a more limited extent, later iterations as well) that you cannot say about, for example, nearby India because control is imperative and there is not some nebulous specter of “progress” overhanging the world like we live in a Real Time Strategy title, as much as modern “syndicalists” seem to think so. The people of China stood up while the people of India and many other countries were held down, and your liberal modernism has no way to account for that while preserving your philippics about the dang tankies.
People who were not Chinese got the same progress like the Chinese did at different speeds (earlier or later). So obviously this progress is not a unique Maoist characteristic. It would have happened anyway. I can just as well argue that under an anarchist system, it would have happened better and not devolved into capitalism and the massive capitalist exploitation chinese workers are suffering right now.
There’s no revisionism here. We can plainly see that the whole world progressed the same way. It’s fucking racist to claim that China wouldn’t have done it if it weren’t for that one guy
That’s the only response I can do to you putting words in my mouth. Don’t know why you’re complaining
You posted a meme. Use your words if you don’t want people misconstruing whatever you’re trying to say.
Fuck you, you’re not my real dad!
you don’t know that for sure, do you?
Posts words
words are read
“DON’T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH TANKIE”
“okay then use your words to explain why me reading what you wrote misrepresents you”
No :3
I think OP is just a genuine fucking idiot and the reason they can’t answer seriously in a single conversation in this thread is because there’s just nothing behind their eyes to respond with
Don’t argue with us idiots, we’ll drag you down to our level and beat you with experience
The guy who needs to reply to every single comment but only to be snarky and obstinate
That’s the guy who isn’t angry
Isn’t.
I’m not particularly putting words in your mouth, I am giving an opinion on what you said (or, rather, the subgenre of statement). You could explain, if you were so inclined, how this characterization is inaccurate rather than merely saying that it is inaccurate, but then that would require something other than a listicle on Wikipedia.
Why should I argue “I’m not an elephant” as we say in my country? This is patently absurd. You erected a strawman and I called you out. As far as I’m concerned, case closed, unless you can point where in my words I acted like a marginalized class because of historical anarchists.
Look again at the fucking meme in the OP. “oh, the tankies killed us anarchists in these historical conflicts, and they will kill us anarchists in future conflicts too if we don’t stop them!”
Just saying a fucking fallacy name isn’t a counterargument anymore than saying “you’re wrong” is a counterargument. Actual arguments require making inferences, not just stating premises.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it’s not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that’s just me.
I applaud your Quixotic efforts to get them to argue about the topic instead of arguing about the meta argument in the most self aggrieved way.
If we were in a hypothetical revolutionary situation led by anarchists that was genuinely and successfully challenging state capitalist power here in the UK then I, as a Marxist-Leninist, wouldn’t be like “Erm, guys, you haven’t sufficiently considered Lenin! Aren’t you aware that the hijacking and reconfiguration of the state for socialist purposes is a necessary transition period towards communism?” I would get behind the fucking barricades with them.
There’s a difference between opposing lesser evilism in the context of Western capitalist electoral politics between two bourgeois parties, and like, being anti-ML or anti-anarchist in actual revolutionary situations (and not stupid fucking hypothetical internet arguments) because “it’s not doing communism right.” Unless there were like, REALLY fucking big problems with what the group is doing, I would just shut up and not weaken the overall movement. As Awoo stated, this is literally what ML groups are doing in Palestine as we speak.
Would it be a better idea to join the anarchists, or form a Marxist Leninist and Anarchist coalition?
That’s exactly what happened in Spain though. The revolution was an anarchist affair, and while MLs fought with, they demanded anarchists become MLs if they wanted bullets.
Stalin literally gave them hundreds of tanks
To whom, under what conditions. We have plenty of evidence that Stalin wanted to crush the anarchists in spain. Again, I don’t go into the debate here. There’s plenty of other people who will happily debate you on this
They did the same thing in supporting the Kuomintang from the Japanese conquest of China right up until the Maoists pushed them out of the mainland. Do you think that perhaps inferior methods of military and industrial organization could have played a part in this, or should Mao have called Stalin red fash and given up?
No, it means “Don’t trust tankies, don’t believe their tales in leftist unity”. Even if we just accept what you just wrote, it’s still nowhere near claiming we’re a marginalized class. That’s just a very uncharitable reading of this meme.
Yes it fucking is! I don’t have the patience to argue every inane claim people are throwing in here. I got shit to do.
I wouldn’t call them “counter-revolutionary” as there’s nothing revolutionary about supporting the status quo, but otherwise we agree.
We also agree. But typically it’s the MLs who refuse to support such anarchist projects because they’re not led by MLs hierarchically.
“Sure, it claims anarchists were historically marginalized and will be marginalized in the future if we don’t learn from lessons of the past, but your saying we are claiming to be marginalized is uncharitable.”
“Nuh-uh” “Yuh-huh” “Nuh-uh” – an argument, I guess
If they are trying to reverse the revolution that put the institution in place, that is counterrevolutionary.
I’ll keep it simple since you’re such a busy bee. You remember Mao-era China? You know, the thing you represent in the meme with a racial caricature killing Manchurian commune people and “intellectuals”? The PRC of that era was, every day, developing and bringing healthcare, land rights (mainly for food), and education to hundreds of millions of people. The CPC under Mao did more to uplift the poor and oppressed than every single little syndicate in the history of the fucking world combined, but here all it gets is to be tarred as butchers on the basis of some obscure commune project and the plight of actual fucking rightists arguing against socialism (or so I must conclude from history I am familiar with, since the accusation is very vague), over a claim that I am pretty sure Mao never actually made.
If you were sincere in wanting to have the people fed and clothed first and foremost, your objection to MLs would be – at its most pointed – on a maoist basis. But instead you’re absorbed in this inexplicable factionalism over communes that has completely warped your historical perspective to the point that you don’t seem to understand the absurd error of scale in your claims.
Nah mate. (No I am not going to argue uncharitable interpretations made up to make gotchas)
I accept that you understand tautologies.
Yawn. This shit is the same arguments Capitalists make every day about “the benefits of capitalism.”
You are conflating generic progress and science with your chosen system. All that would have happened anyway whether they were State Capitalist as they are, or straight up Capitalist as they’re becoming.
And now you are, in order to conflate me with capitalists, yourself regurgitating capitalist propaganda! Remember, I’m not talking about Deng and the “Chinese Miracle” (which I think is a mischaracterization by liberals), I am specifically talking about Mao-era China, where the use of things like agricultural collectives was a major element in the reduction of poverty that liberal economists had no interest in accounting for.
But to consider the progress that China has made merely the inevitable motion of science and capitalism is literally liberal revisionism! Inventions serve mainly to impoverish if the people who own and control those inventions are not the workers! Just look at the cotton gin if you need an easy example, and perhaps see that the Luddites had a point in their angle of economic self-defense (though this should by no means be conflated with primitivism).
People were fed who were not fed before, people could read who could not read before, peasants no longer had to surrender 90% of their harvest to landlords, childhood mortality plummeted. These are things you can say about China under Mao (and, to a more limited extent, later iterations as well) that you cannot say about, for example, nearby India because control is imperative and there is not some nebulous specter of “progress” overhanging the world like we live in a Real Time Strategy title, as much as modern “syndicalists” seem to think so. The people of China stood up while the people of India and many other countries were held down, and your liberal modernism has no way to account for that while preserving your philippics about the dang tankies.
People who were not Chinese got the same progress like the Chinese did at different speeds (earlier or later). So obviously this progress is not a unique Maoist characteristic. It would have happened anyway. I can just as well argue that under an anarchist system, it would have happened better and not devolved into capitalism and the massive capitalist exploitation chinese workers are suffering right now.
There’s no revisionism here. We can plainly see that the whole world progressed the same way. It’s fucking racist to claim that China wouldn’t have done it if it weren’t for that one guy
you haven’t done anything but bitch and moan at things you don’t understand. No wonder you hate tankies! You have zero political literacy!