To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.
The points from combat liberalism were made with regard to handling members of a party or some other revolutionary org doing a liberalism. It's nonsensical to apply this to someone who isn't even a communist yet.
But why should we stop explaining to people outside of communism? Is it nonsensical to expect a principled communist to not give up on explaining the theory to a fellow worker? Should we just give up because we get frustrated?
People only have so much time and patience. Bashing your head into a wall trying to explain to someone who you make no progress with is ultimately taking away time and energy that could be used explaining to more receptive people.
It's not letting things slide, is the thing there. 'Letting things slide' is keeping him around despite his sending anticom propaganda. It is utter and entire condemnation to be disfellowshipped, on the other hand; and that is how I advocate for handling the lost cause.
Because all it's doing is wasting time chasing up a link that even if it does get read, will only provoke them to dig their heels in. People don't do even the potential for being wrong anymore, and as someone who's very prone to wasting entire days arguing if left to their own devices, it's better for my not having a fucking stroke to stop engaging.
Your personal well-being is obviously the first priority, but outside of that, we can't stop explaining
Staying silent is cowardice and benefits the status quo, you have to decide how principled you are
If having friends who disagree with you on a fundamental level is more important than staying true to your core beliefs, someone has to question your commintment to your beliefs
To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.
The points from combat liberalism were made with regard to handling members of a party or some other revolutionary org doing a liberalism. It's nonsensical to apply this to someone who isn't even a communist yet.
But why should we stop explaining to people outside of communism? Is it nonsensical to expect a principled communist to not give up on explaining the theory to a fellow worker? Should we just give up because we get frustrated?
People only have so much time and patience. Bashing your head into a wall trying to explain to someone who you make no progress with is ultimately taking away time and energy that could be used explaining to more receptive people.
You don't have to actively chase a spesific person, you just can't stop giving a better alternative
It's not letting things slide, is the thing there. 'Letting things slide' is keeping him around despite his sending anticom propaganda. It is utter and entire condemnation to be disfellowshipped, on the other hand; and that is how I advocate for handling the lost cause.
Why won't you reply with procom propaganda? It's our responsibility to refute and prove wrong the anticom propaganda
Because all it's doing is wasting time chasing up a link that even if it does get read, will only provoke them to dig their heels in. People don't do even the potential for being wrong anymore, and as someone who's very prone to wasting entire days arguing if left to their own devices, it's better for my not having a fucking stroke to stop engaging.
Your personal well-being is obviously the first priority, but outside of that, we can't stop explaining
Staying silent is cowardice and benefits the status quo, you have to decide how principled you are
If having friends who disagree with you on a fundamental level is more important than staying true to your core beliefs, someone has to question your commintment to your beliefs