Disagreement is treason (elementary school dismissal without argumentative engagement), reference to your precious cult of tradition (Nazism is also modernist you muppet) which you of course misread all the time that's another strike for Newspeak your "Marxist democracy" is neither of the two, lastly the equation of bourgeois oligarchy with liberal democracy (one does not imply the other), that's strike four, obsession with a plot and/or the enemy is simultaneously weak and strong, could go either way. Maybe just popular elitism.

As your lawyer I counsel you to continue posting.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Disagreement is treason

Source?

reference to your precious cult of tradition

Lol. Yes trying to return to an imagined past and having an intellectual tradition are the same thing /s

By that logic basically all ideology(including yours) is fascism, and to not be a fascist we cannot learn literally anything ever about politics.

(Nazism is also modernist you muppet)

You said I was rejecting modernism by rejecting liberal democracy, which is literally rooted in enlightenment ideas. I was saying you are not making sense, because you are saying I'm rejecting modernism when I'm rejecting enlightenment era ideology.

which you of course misread all the time that’s another strike for Newspeak

How about another strike for literally knowing what words mean and using them properly? You did not say modern, you said modernism. If you didn't want to be misinterpreted, do not use language that conveys an entirely different meaning.

lastly the equation of bourgeois oligarchy with liberal democracy (one does not imply the other), that’s strike four

I wish I had the confidence to make such bold claims with so little knowledge. Have you even ever read about "dictatorship of capital"? Do you even know what that term means? How about you explain it in your own words for me.

obsession with a plot and/or the enemy is simultaneously weak and strong, could go either way. Maybe just popular elitism

Loling at popular elitism.

Also I will never claim that the current state of capitalism is weak.

Also again you are misreading the 14 points as some litmus test.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Source?

Me. And Eco. You just can't let it go, can you, that someone disagrees with your precious ideology.

Lol. Yes trying to return to an imagined past and having an intellectual tradition are the same thing /s

I never said that. I said that you think that all truth has already been revealed by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and possibly Mao. At least one of which you misread but that's another topic.

You said I was rejecting modernism by rejecting liberal democracy, which is literally rooted in enlightenment ideas. I was saying you are not making sense, because you are saying I’m rejecting modernism when I’m rejecting enlightenment era ideology.

You are rejecting the rational development that started with the Enlightenment, aka modernism. Nazism and Marxism-Leninism are both part of that and reject it in their own ways, in a sense anticipating post-modernism. Neither are theologies or whatever, both reject democracy, both reject actually scientific socialism, the proper rational strain to follow, aka Anarchism. Something something complexity theory I'll let you do your own research can't be arsed to feed that to a tankie.

Have you even ever read about “dictatorship of capital”?

How's the GINI coefficient where you're from? Maybe that's the reason. Over where I am, struggle-wise, the labour aristocracy is actually kinda more of a headache than capital because capital is so easy to see.

Also again you are misreading the 14 points as some litmus test.

What is the proper application in your mind then, pray tell? Can you explain it?

There's a reason I said "one would be sufficient for fascism to coalesce around", not "one is sufficient for fascism". Otherwise post-modernism would be fascist which makes no sense. At the very least you need an ideological group which corrals around a specific instantiation of those points, a particular way to gloss over the inherent contradictions, really, and engages in political action.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Me. And Eco. You just can’t let it go, can you, that someone disagrees with your precious ideology.

Eco claims disagreement was treason in the USSR? What supporting evidence does he use?

said that you think that all truth has already been revealed by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and possibly Mao.

Bwahahahahaha this is really funny, literally reading a book on expanding marxist concepts into the sphere of transness

Marxism is a living intellectual tradition about ruthless critique, which includes of past leaders and thinkers.

You are rejecting the rational development that started with the Enlightenment, aka modernism. Nazism and Marxism-Leninism are both part of that and reject it in their own ways, in a sense anticipating post-modernism. Neither are theologies or whatever, both reject democracy, both reject actually scientific socialism, the proper rational strain to follow, aka Anarchism. Something something complexity theory I’ll let you do your own research can’t be arsed to feed that to a tankie.

Lol, sure, you can define words to mean whatever you want.

On democracy- literally every socialist state has more democracy than bourgeois democracies, because the people are (imperfectly) represented by politicians, the politicians are not there to serve capital.

both reject actually scientific socialism, the proper rational strain to follow, aka Anarchism.

Tell me how your anarchist projects in Catalonia and Ukraine were actually based anti-authoritarians when they did labor and concentration camps. Or when Ukraine was basically a military dictatorship, and enabled kulaks to massacre Jewish people.

Oh, or tell me about your more modern projects (the ones that actually claim to be anarchists, not indigenous resistors in Central America who don't claim to be socialist or anarchist)

"Anarchism is a coat that only leaks when it is wet. "

How’s the GINI coefficient where you’re from? Maybe that’s the reason. Over where I am, struggle-wise, the labour aristocracy is actually kinda more of a headache than capital because capital is so easy to see.

Wait, so your argument is that the labor aristocracy actually controls your country? You are responding to me asking you if you could define dictatorship of capital.

There’s a reason I said “one would be sufficient for fascism to coalesce around”, not “one is sufficient for fascism”.

Then what youre saying holds no water? Sufficient to coalesce around isn't the same as a definition of.

Also Marxism doesn't really fit any single point in the definition.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Eco claims disagreement was treason in the USSR? What supporting evidence does he use?

I don't even. He wrote about fascism in general, not about specific regimes short of Italy which he uses for some anecdotes, unsurprising given that he's Italian.

The rest of what you wrote makes just as little sense, so goodbye. Talk to me when you're grown up.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

Ah, so we are at the part where the pigeon shits on the chess board, declares victory, and flies off.