Memes

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.